JUDGMENT 1. -Briefly stated the prosecution case as disclosed by the F.I.R., is to be effect that on 19.9.82 at about 3 PM. when PW.4 Smt. Mohan Bai was cutting grass in her field situate at village Ratiapura, the appellant reached there, caught hold of Smt. Mohan Bai, assaulted her and outraged her modesty. The report of the incident was lodged by Smt. Mohan Bai's husband's elder brother Ram Prasad, PW.6, on 20.9.82 at 4.30 PM. at Police Station Masalpura whereupon Crime No. 77/1982 Under section 341, 323, 354 IPC was registered. PW. 10, Ram Sahay, S.H.O., commenced the investigation and examined the prosecution witnesses Under section 161 Cr.PC. Smt. Mohan Bai was, however, examined on 21.9.82 Under section 164 Cr.PC. and therein she deposed that she had been raped by the appellant Babu Lal. The charge was accordingly amended and on 23.9.82 at 1.00 P.M. Smt. Mohan Bai was produced before PW.1 Dr. Nand Lal Sharma, for being examined about the evidence of rape, having been committed on her as also regarding her age. RW.1 Dr. Nand Lal Sharma, found several injuries on the person of Smt. Mohan Bai, which, in the opinion of Dr. Nand Lal Sharma, were three to five days old. Certain garments particularly the 'petticoat' of Smt. Mohan Bai was also seized from her person and was sent for chemical examination but the report of the Chemical Examiner was not brought on record. The appellant was arrested on 13.10.82 and his under-wear was also seized and sent to the Chemical Examiner tor examination, but no report of the Chemical Examiner was brought on record. After having completed the investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted for having committed the offence Under section 376 IPC against Smt. Mohan Bai. The learned trial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, who, after trial of the appellant, found him guilty of the offence Under section 376 IPC, convicted him as such and sentenced him to 10 years R.l. with a fine of Rs. 500/- vide his judgment and order dated 1.12.83. By the present appeal, Babu Lal, accused-appellant, has challenged his conviction and sentence as made and passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, in the present case. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and examined the record of the lower court. 3. 500/- vide his judgment and order dated 1.12.83. By the present appeal, Babu Lal, accused-appellant, has challenged his conviction and sentence as made and passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, in the present case. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and examined the record of the lower court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that not only the prosecution had put up a totally concocted and false case against the appellant but also that the prosecution witnesses fail to support such a case at the trial. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Judge has based his conclusions regarding the guilt of the accused on mis-appreciation of the evidence and the natural circumstances attending on the commission of the alleged offence, have been totally ignored. It was pointed out that not only the prosecution theory suffer from abnormalities but also the conduct of the prosecution witnesses was quite abnormal and unnatural and such conduct and behaviour of the prosecution witnesses did not inspire any confidence in the court. It was thus submitted that the conviction and sentence, made in the present case, should not be sustained. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the judgment and order under challenge, submitted that cases of such assaults against the members of fair sex, should not be taken lightly and the court should be sensitive in dealing with such case. It was pointed out that looking to the conditions prevailing in our society some delay in lodging F.I.R.'s in such matters, some minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, should not be given undue weight. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that by now it is well settled that conviction in cases of rape may safely be based on the sole and single testimony of the ravished lady and even if the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, that does not minimise the value of the testimony of the prosecutrix. It was submitted that Smt. Mohan Bai, in the present case, had clearly stated that the appellant had committed rape on her. 5. The success of a prosecution lies in the truths which is there in the story, advanced by the prosecution. It was submitted that Smt. Mohan Bai, in the present case, had clearly stated that the appellant had committed rape on her. 5. The success of a prosecution lies in the truths which is there in the story, advanced by the prosecution. If the theory, put forth by the prosecution, runs counter to the natural and normal conduct and behaviour of the persons involved or goes against the facts, which should naturally exist and attend on the commission of the offence in a given case, such a theory cannot be believed. It is true that conviction in cases of sexual assault on ladies may be based solely on the basis of the statements of the ravished lady and looking to the facts and circumstances of particular case, necessity for corroboration to her testimony, may not be stressed. It has been an established rule of appreciation of evidence in such cases that conviction in cases of rape does not require corroborating evidence to the testimony of the ravished lady. What was required, was that the mind Judge should be alive to find corroborating evidence to the testimony of the ravished lady. Such corroborating evidence may be furnished by the facts and circumstances of the case which naturally attend upon the commission of such offence or even by her own body and clothes. But the essential requirement is that the theory advanced by the prosecution must fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and must inspire confidence in the court. It must accord with the normal and natural conduct and behaviour of the witnesses involved in such cases. The behaviour of the persons concerned is also to be appreciated in the background, the witnesses or the persons involved come from. It after considering all these facts, the theory advanced by the prosecution inspires confidence in the court then further corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix is not required to base the conviction in cases of rape. 6. In the instant case the prosecution had put up a case in the F.I.R. that Smt. Mohan Bai, PW.4, had been assaulted by the appellant. This case was put up in the F.I.R.. which was lodged by none else but the elder brother of the husband of the ravished lady and who incidentally happens to be the husband of her own elder sister. This case was put up in the F.I.R.. which was lodged by none else but the elder brother of the husband of the ravished lady and who incidentally happens to be the husband of her own elder sister. Before lodging the F.I.r., PW.6, Ram Prasad, had come to know of all the facts regarding the commission of the alleged offence against a female member of his own family and, therefore, he was in a position to narrate all the relevant facts in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was admittedly lodged after a lapse of one day and the narration given in the F.I.R. did not disclose the commission of an offence of rape against PW.4, Smt. Mohan Bai. Though other prosecution witnesses were examined Under section 161 Cr.PC., yet Smt. Mohan Bai was not examined under that provision of law. But she was examined as late as on 21.9.82 Under section 164 Cr.PC. The Investigating Officer has given no reason or explanation as to why he had thought it proper not to examine the ravished lady just after the occurrence or soon thereafter and waited for her examination to be recorded Under section 164 Cr.PC. on 21.9.82. Even if Smt. Mohan Bai had been examined Under section 164 Cr.PC. on 21.9.82 and she had been taken to the court of the Magistrate, there was no reason as to why she was not produced before PW.1 Dr. Nand Lal Sharma on that very day. She was produced before Dr. Nand Lal Sharma on 23.9.82 and no explanation was given as to why she was not produced before Dr. Nand Lal Sharma on the day on which she had disclosed that rape had been committed upon her. In the presence of these fatal infirmities in the present case, let us examine the evidence which was brought forth on the record of the case at the trial. 7. PW.4, Smt. Mohan Bai, is the prosecutrix herself. She had told that when she was cutting grass in the field, the elder brother of her husband, who also happen to be the husband of her own elder sister, was also working in the same field on the other corner. 7. PW.4, Smt. Mohan Bai, is the prosecutrix herself. She had told that when she was cutting grass in the field, the elder brother of her husband, who also happen to be the husband of her own elder sister, was also working in the same field on the other corner. Ram Ji Lal and Ram Prasad, the two witnesses who were named in the F.I.R. and were alleged to have reached the place of occurrence on hearing an alarm, raised by Smt. Mohan Bai, are stated to have been working in their fields nearby at the relevant time. The witness further told that at that time the appellant approached her, caught hold of her, made her lie on the ground and committed rape upon her. She further stated that the appellant had put the cloth in her mouth and thus disabled her to raise alarm. However, she could be successful in raising some alarm which attracted PW.6, Ram Prasad, her 'Jeth' and 'Behnoi' besides PW.5 Ram Charan and Pw. 9 Ram Ji Lal to the spot. She further stated that the appellant had then ran away. PW.6, Ram Prasad, then took her to the house in the village where she narrated the incident to her elder sister Smt. Lakkho PW.8, and her mother-in-law smt. Dhan Bai, Pw.7. In her cross- examination she told that she had sustained injuries in the sexual act and that Ram Prasad was the first person to reach the place of occurrence. She further stated that it was Ram Prasad who had called Ram Ji Lal and Ram Charan thereafter. She further stated that she was weeping continuously and did not narrate the incident to the witnesses. In the cross-examination she further stated that she had gone to the police station along with her elder sister's husband, mother-in-law and narrated the entire incident to the police officer there, who had recorded a report and obtained her thumb impression on such report. She further stated that she was examined on that very day by a Doctor and that her petticoat had also been obtained by the police officer on that very day. She further told that at her house and before coming to the police station, when had narrated the entire incident to the members of the family including her own husband. She further stated that she was examined on that very day by a Doctor and that her petticoat had also been obtained by the police officer on that very day. She further told that at her house and before coming to the police station, when had narrated the entire incident to the members of the family including her own husband. In the end of the cross-examination she stated that she was stating in the court, what her 'Jeth'/'Behnoi' had told her outside the court. 8. PW.5 Ram Charan and PW.9 Ram Ji Lal are those two witnesses who were cited as eye-witnesses in the F.I.R. and claimed to have witnessed the entire incident. Both these witnesses though come from the larger family of Ram Prasad and Smt. Mohan Bai, did not support the prosecution case at all. PW.5, Ram Charan stated that though he had heard some alarm coming from the field of Nathua and he had reached there and found Mohan Bai, Ramji Lal and Ram Prasad present there. What Ram prasad and Ram Ji Lal stated to him was that the appellant had picked up some quarrel with them. The appellant was not stated to be present there. PW.9 Ram Ji Lal had totally denied any knowledge of the incident which was alleged to have taken place at the field of Nathua. Nathu appears to be the father-in-law of Smt. Mohan Bai. In cross-examination the witness told that Babu Lal, appellant and PW.6 Ram Prasad were not on speaking terms. 9. PW.7 Smt. Dhan Bai is the mother-in-law and PW.8 Smt. Lakkho is the elder sister of Smt. Mohan Bai. Smt. Mohan Bai had stated that she had narrated the entire incident to these two ladies at the house and that they had also accompanied her to the police station. Both these witnesses did not support such a version and were declared hostile. PW.7 Smt. Dhan Bai stated that she never came to know of any incident of rape having been committed on Smt. Mohan Bai at the field. PW.8 Smt. Lakkho spoke in the same language. Both these lady witnesses admitted that Babu Lal, appellant and Ram Prasad, PW.6, were not on speaking term and that their relations had strained when they had been working on the mines. PW.8 Smt. Lakkho spoke in the same language. Both these lady witnesses admitted that Babu Lal, appellant and Ram Prasad, PW.6, were not on speaking term and that their relations had strained when they had been working on the mines. The prosecution witnesses named above, further told that the appellant was non else but a member of their bigger family and was also married to a cousin of Smt. Mohan Bai. 10. PW.6 Ram Prasad, as stated above, is not only the eye- witness of the occurrence but also the informant in the case. Though in his examination-in-chief he supported the prosecution case yet what he stated there was that when he heard the alarm, raised by Smt. Mohan Bai, and reached the place of occurrence, Mohan Bai and the appellant were engaged in a fight. Smt. Mohan Bai was sitting there and at that time Ram Ji Lal and Ram Charan had also reached there. He further stated that higher did he ask Mohan Bai as to what had happened with her nor Mohan Bai had herself told him about any incident of rape upon her. In cross-examination he stated that he did not try to run after the appellant, who had left the place of occurrence on seeing them arriving there. In cross-examination he further stated that though he had told the police officer that Smt. Mohan Bai had been raped yet such a version was not given in the report. 11. A bare narration of the evidence led by the main prosecution witnesses in the case is sufficient to inform that such evidence not only suffers from material contradictions but also that the conduct and behaviour of the prosecution witnesses was quite abnormal and unnatural. It does not appeal to my reasons that in broad day time the appellant would dare to catch hold of Smt. Mohan Bai, PW.4, in the field when in that very field her husband's elder brother and other witnesses, in their adjoining fields, were present. It also does not inspire any confidence in me that if such an incident had taken place with Smt. Mohan Bai at that place, we would not like to narrate the incident to the witnesses or the witnesses would not like to ask as to what had happened with her. It also does not inspire any confidence in me that if such an incident had taken place with Smt. Mohan Bai at that place, we would not like to narrate the incident to the witnesses or the witnesses would not like to ask as to what had happened with her. Had such an incident taken place with Smt. Mohan Bai, it would have been the natural conduct of these witnesses to have not only chased the appellant in order to apprehend him but would have also picked up a quarrel with the members of his family in the village as that is the normal conduct of the villagers in such matters. The appellant was apprehended after a long time and no incident of altercation between the members of the families of the appellant and of the ravished lady was even alleged to have taken place. The evidence clearly discloses that the appellant and the members of the family of the ravished lady not only had inters dispute but were inimical towards each other also. Ram Prasad and his younger brother were not on speaking terms with the appellant. That apart, it does not appeal to my reasons that an elder sister and a mother-in-law would not like to support the prosecution case if an offence of the nature, as is alleged by the prosecution, had ever been committed on their close relatives. The prosecution evidence as also the very prosecution case suffers from abnormalities of human conduct, inspires no confidence and does not fit in facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Dr. Nand Lal Sharma, PW.1, stated that he had observed a number of abrasions on various parts of the body of Smt. Mohan Bai and such abrasions were having wet scab of bluish brown colour but he did not tell any reason as to why injury No.1, an abrasion, was not having wet scab mark when the same is also alleged to have been caused in the same incident. In his cross-examination he has told that scab formation commenced after three days and dries after seven days. He has not ruled out that looking to the parts of the body the disputed abrasions could have been self inflicted also. In his cross-examination he has told that scab formation commenced after three days and dries after seven days. He has not ruled out that looking to the parts of the body the disputed abrasions could have been self inflicted also. Though the witness had examined Smt. Mohan Bai for finding relevant evidence regarding the rape committed on her and had found abrasions on various parts of her body particularly waist and chest yet he had observed no marks of any injury on her thighs, breasts and around her genitals. I am not satisfied that the medical evidence on the record affords any corroboration to the un-believable case the prosecution. 13. In this context the case put up by the accused in his defence becomes relevant. What he had stated was that he had noticed Smt. Mohan Bai cutting grass in his field whereupon he had scolded her. He had further stated that on her scolding Smt. Mohan Bai, a totally false case was concocted against him. Looking to the infirmities, abnormalities and un-naturalises in the version and evidence of the prosecution there is much probability of the defence version being true. 14. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the prosecution had filed to prove the charge Under section 376 IPC against the appellant. The appellant deserves acquittal. 15. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appellant acquitted of the offence Under section 376 IPC. The appellant shall be set to his liberty, if in jail and not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******