JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.11.95 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota, whereby he convicted appellant Dhannalal for offences under Sections 376 & 342 Indian Penal Code and appellant Prakash Under sections 376/109 & 342, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to R.I. for ten years with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default 3 months' RI on the first count, and to one year's RI on the second count and further directed that their substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated, relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that PW 6 Smt. Lila by caste Bairwa r/o village Devli had come to her aunt's (Bua's) house situated in village Lakheriya, that on 10.8.94 at about 1.30 PM. while she was coming back after answering the call of nature and had reached in front of the house of Ganga Ram, appellants Dhannalal and Om Prakash s/o Gangaram and co- accused Kajod (who has been acquitted by the trial Court) met her. It is alleged that appellant Dhannalal caught hold of her hand and forcibly dragged her inside the house of Gangaram and that co-accused Prakash & Kajod bolted and locked the doors of that house from outside and then went away. It is further alleged that appellant Dhannalal wrapped a towel around her mouth, caught hold of both her hands, forcibly fell her down and committed rape with her. Ms. Lila after removing that towel raised an alarm, which attracted her `Bhabhi' PW 5 Kani Bai, who came there and got opened the lock of that house from Om Prakash. Ms. Lila narrated about the incident to Smt. Kani Bai. PW 8 Jai Shankar, the `Phupha' of the prosecutrix, who had come later on took her to police station Suket, where she submitted written report Ex.R 4 to PW 11 Akhtar Ali,.H.C. the then incharge of police station on the same day at 6.10 PM., whereupon formal FIR Ex.P 5 was drawn. PW 14 Dalip Singh ASI, who conducted the investigation in this case, inspected the place ot occurrence on 13.8.94 and prepared site plan Ex.P 2 at the instance of the prosecutrix. He also seized her skirt (Ghaghra) vide seizure memo Ex.P 3. On 13.8.94 Dr. PW 14 Dalip Singh ASI, who conducted the investigation in this case, inspected the place ot occurrence on 13.8.94 and prepared site plan Ex.P 2 at the instance of the prosecutrix. He also seized her skirt (Ghaghra) vide seizure memo Ex.P 3. On 13.8.94 Dr. N.D. Hirani, Medical Officer incharge of the Primary Health Center, Ramganj Mandi examined the prosecutrix but did not find any external or internal injury either on her body or her genitals. He vide his report Ex.P 8 opined that the prosecutrix was in habit of regular sexual intercourse and there was no evidence of recent intercourse. He, however, reserved his final opinion till the receipt of chemical examination report of her vaginal swabs and pubic hair. On 16.8.94 PW 12 Purshottam Radiologist conducted the radiological examination of Ms. Lila and opined that her age was above 16 years but below 17 years. Appellant Dhannalal was arrested on 16.8.94 and it is alleged that in pursuance to his voluntary disclosure made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, he got recovered his under-wear (Chaddi), which had already been washed off. The vaginal swab, public hair and the skirt of the prosecutrix as also the underwear of appellant Dhannalal were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory but the prosecution- did not file the chemical examination report. Appellant Prakash and co-accused Kajod were also arrested and after investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ramganj Mandi, who in turn, committed the case to, the Court of Sessions. 3. Appellant Dhannalal was charged for offences under Sections 376 and 342, Indian Penal Code while appellant Om Prakash & co- accused Kajod were charged under Sections 376/34 & 342 Indian Penal Code. All of them denied the indictment and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Appellants and co-accused Kajod in their examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. However, they did not examine any witness in defence. After trial, the learned Special Judge by his impugned judgment acquitted co-accused Kajod but convicted & sentenced the appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. I have heard Ms. However, they did not examine any witness in defence. After trial, the learned Special Judge by his impugned judgment acquitted co-accused Kajod but convicted & sentenced the appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. I have heard Ms. Pradeep Lata Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri R.S. Agrawal, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the trial Court in extenso. 5. Ms. Pradeep Lata Mathur has assailed the impugned judgment on multiple grounds. She has strenuously canvassed that from the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case, it stands fairly established that on the date of alleged incident, the age of prosecutrix Smt. Lila Bai was positively above 18 years and that the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality in holding that her age was below 18 years. Her second thrust of argument is that the statement of prosecutrix Smt. Lila Bai is most unnatural and replete with material contradictions & inconsistencies, that her statement has not been corroborated by oral as also by medical evidence because the doctor did not find any injury on her private parts and her body. Besides this, the seized Ghaghra of the prosecutrix 1 was not found stained with semen. Similarly, the Chaddi (underwear) of appellant Dhannalal alleged to have been recovered at his instance was not stained with semen. The prosecution also did not file the Chemical Examination Report of the State FSL in respect of the Ghaghra, vaginal smear, swabs and pubic hair of the prosecutrix, underwear and sample of semen of the appellant. Thus, the bald statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. Ms. Mathur's next thrust of arguments is that the learned trial Judge has committed patent illegality in ignoring the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecutrix, PW 5 Kani Bai, PW 7 Mohan Lal and PW 8 Jai Shankar. She has asserted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Dhanna Lal had committed rape upon the prosecutrix, that appellant Prakash @ Om Prakash abetted co-appellant Dhannalal for committing rape or that appellants had wrongly and illegally confined the prosecutrix. 6. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Agrawal, the learned Public Prosecutor has urged that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Prosecutrix, which is straight-forward and credible. 6. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Agrawal, the learned Public Prosecutor has urged that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Prosecutrix, which is straight-forward and credible. He has contended that it is not at all necessary to have corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix. He has, thus, supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasonings incorporated therein. 7. I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In this case, the first and foremost question, which requires determination is about the age of the prosecutrix on the date of the incident. The prosecution has failed to examine either the father or the mother of the prosecutrix, who could have deposed about her exact age. In the written report (Ex.R 4), which was scribed by PW 8 Jai Shankar, the `Phupha' of the prosecutrix, the age of Smt. Lila Bai has not been mentioned. However, in the police proceedings jotted below the said report, PW 11 Akhtar Ali, Head Constable, the then incharge of Police station Suket, estimated her age as 13 years though in his statement during trial, he had not uttered a single word about her approximate age. 8. PW 6 Lila Bai in her statement before the trial Judge, which was recorded on 1th July, 1995 stated that her age was 10-12 years, which is patently false. However, in her cross examination, she admitted that she has two brothers and has no sister, that one of her brother is elder to her while another is younger. She admitted that her elder brother is aged 20-22 years. However, she did not know as to whether she is two years younger to him or not. She also pleaded her ignorance, as to whether her younger brother is aged 17-18 years or not. Thereafter she added that her younger brother was aged about 10 years. She then changed her version and stated that her brother is 2 years younger to her. She admitted that her marriage as also the marriage of her elder brother were solemnized on the same day about four years ago and that for last 12 months she has been staying in her in-laws' house. She admitted that she did cast her vote this year during the Panchayat Elections. She admitted that her marriage as also the marriage of her elder brother were solemnized on the same day about four years ago and that for last 12 months she has been staying in her in-laws' house. She admitted that she did cast her vote this year during the Panchayat Elections. This fact clearly shows that her age was more than 18 years as she had cast her vote during the Gram Panchayat elections. 9. PW 5 Smt. Kani Bai, who is the wife of Ram Dayal the younger brother of PW 8 Jai Shanker stated that on the day of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was about 10-12 years and that she had stated this fact in her police statement (Ex.R 1), but when confronted with the said statement, she admitted that the said fact did not find mention therein. She then corrected herself and said that it might be just possible that she might have not informed the Investigation Officer about the age of the prosecutrix. She also admitted that she had seen the prosecutrix for the first time only few days prior to the day of incident because the latter had come to her house for the first time. She admitted that she was not sure, if the prosecutrix was of more age. To quote her, "Lila ki zyada umar ho to mein nahin kah sakti". Thus, the statement of Kani Bai regarding the age of prosecutrix is most vague and unworthy of credence. PW 8 Jai Shankar, who is the `Phupha' of prosecutrix, has not stated any fact about her age. 10. PW 9 Dr. PP Bansal, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ramganj Mandi, who examined the prosecutrix in the evening of 13.8.94, did not mention about her age in his report Ex.R 8. PW 12 Dr. Purshotam, Senior Specialist, MBS Hospital, Kota, deposed that prosecutrix Smt. Lila Bai was radiologically examined on 16.8.94 in his presence, that X-Ray plates of her elbow and pelvis (Ex.R 12 & 13) indicated that all the centre (?) around her elbow were fused with their respective centres, head of first mentacarpal (epiphysis) was fused, lower end of radius was also fused while the lower end of Ulna had appeared but not fused completely. Similarly, epiphysis for her illiac crest and ischial tuberosity had appeared but not fused. Similarly, epiphysis for her illiac crest and ischial tuberosity had appeared but not fused. He has proved the report Ex.P 11 and deposed that in his opinion, the age of prosecutrix was above 16 years and below 17 years. However, in his cross-examination he in most unambiguous, explicit and clear terms admitted that the possibility of an error in assumption of age by ossification test is of about two years either on the higher side or on the lower side. Thus, as per his testimony, the age of the prosecutrix on 16.8.94 could be above 18 years but below 19 years. 11. In Mangal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1977 WLN (UC) 243 relying on the observations made in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, it has been held that too much reliance should not be placed on the medical opinion based on Ossification test and the table given in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence for ascertaining the age of young persons as it merely indicates an average and is likely to vary in individual cases even of the same province owing to the eccentricities of development and that recent work has shown that the range of error may be upto + /- three years. Thus, the Ossification test carried out by PW 12 Dr. Purshottam does not conclusively prove that prosecutrix Ms. Lila Bai was below the age of 18 years on the day of the incident. To my mind, the learned trial Judge committed a patent illegality in holding that her age was below 18 years. 12. PW 6 Smt. Lila Bai, is resident of village Deoli, Tehsil Ramganj Mandi. She was married to Kalyan about three years prior to the incident. She stated that her `Bua' was carrying a matured pregnancy and was expecting delivery, therefore, her `Phupha' Jai Shankar had brought her to his village Lakharia two days prior to the incident. 12. PW 6 Smt. Lila Bai, is resident of village Deoli, Tehsil Ramganj Mandi. She was married to Kalyan about three years prior to the incident. She stated that her `Bua' was carrying a matured pregnancy and was expecting delivery, therefore, her `Phupha' Jai Shankar had brought her to his village Lakharia two days prior to the incident. She deposed that on the ill fated day, in the morning she was coming from the Tal' (a pond in the jungle) after answering the call of nature that it was raining at the time and (hat when she reached just in front of Jai Shankar's house, she saw three accused persons, that they closed her mouth and took her inside the house of accused Prakash, that thereafter accused Kajod (co-accused acquitted by the trial court) and Prakash (appellant) both, came outside and that Dhanna Lal stayed inside that house. She further stated that Prakash and Kajod after going out locked the house and that Dhanna Lal tried to molest her. She raised an alarm and thereupon Prakash opened the door. But in the next breath. She changed her version and told that appellant Dhanna Lal had put off his underwear, lifted her Ghaghra (skirt), inserted his male organ inside her vagina and committed rape for about five minutes. She told that when appellant Dhanna Lal ejaculated, her garments were stained with his semen. Thereafter she came outside the room and saw that her Bhabhi Kani Bai was standing there, to whom she narrated the incident. On the other hand, PW 5 Smt. Kani Bai, aged 20-25 years has deposed that prosecutrix Lila Bai did neither disclose anything to her about the incident nor inform about any overt act of appellant Dhanna Lal. She further deposed that, she also did not notice as to whether the garments of Ms. Lila were in proper order or not ?. Thereafter to another question put by the Public Prosecutor, PW 5 Kani Bai told that Lila had informed her that when she was returning after going to the latrine Prakash, Kajod and Dhanna Lal had caught hold of her, that they had taken her inside the house and locked her. Thus, as per testimony of PW 5 Kani Bai, the prosecutrix immediately after the occurrence did not inform her that appellant Dhanna Lal had committed rape with her. Thus, as per testimony of PW 5 Kani Bai, the prosecutrix immediately after the occurrence did not inform her that appellant Dhanna Lal had committed rape with her. On the other hand, she had simple informed her that three accused persons had taken her inside the house and locked the same. Apparently, the learned trial Judge has conveniently ignored this most material and significant contradiction in the testimony of these two witnesses. 13. PW 7 Mohan Lal, who is alleged to have gone outside the house of Om Prakash after hearing the conversation of some persons that a boy and a girl have gone inside the house of Prakash, has deposed that Kani Bai had asked Prakash to open the lock of the house and that from that house prosecutrix Lila Bai and appellant Dhanna Lal had come outside. He stated that Ms. Lila Bai did not tell anything about the incident to him. He thereafter changed his statement and stated that Lila Bai had said that she was forcibly taken inside Prakash's house and that Dhanna Lal had committed rape upon her. Mohan Lal also stated that he only saw appellant Prakash and Dhanna Lal and did not see co-accused Kajod there. This witness was, therefore, declared hostile. He stated that his house was situated at a distance of 70-80 feet from the house of Prakash, that on that day, he had gone to Ramganj Mandi from where after making some purchases, he returned to his house and that thereafter some boys of tender age were making noise to the effect that a boy and a girl had gone inside the house of Prakash. Thus, the testimony of PW 7 Mohan Lal is quite vague, wavering, inconsistent and contradictory to his police statement Ex.P. 7. From his testimony, it is not proved that prosecutrix immediately after the occurrence had narrated the details of the incident to this witness. On the other hand, this witness has invented a new story and stated that when he returned from Ramganj Mandi, he heard some boys were making noise that a boy and a girl had entered inside the house of Prakash, that thereupon he had gone there, where Smt. Kani Bai got opened the lock of that house and from where appellant Dhanna Lal and Lila Bai had come out. This reflects that Ms. Lila Bai was a consenting party. 14. This reflects that Ms. Lila Bai was a consenting party. 14. PW 8 Jai Shankar deposed that on the ill fated day, he had gone to village 'Julmi' to bring kerosene oil, that he returned at about 3.00 P.M. and that at that time Lila Bai had told him about the incident. But neither prosecutrix Lila Bai nor PW 5 Kani Bai nor Mohan Lal have stated that the prosecutrix had informed Jai Shankar about the incident. Therefore, from the testimony of PW 8 Jai Shankar, it cannot be inferred that the prosecutrix immediately after the incident had narrated the details of the occurrence to him. In my considered opinion, the statement of PW 8 Jai Shankar on this count is not at all relevant nor the same is reliable. 15. PW 6 Smt. Lila Bai in her written report (Ex.P 4) mentioned that while she was returning from the `Tal' after easing herself, appellant Dhanna Lal caught hold of her hand and forcibly dragged her inside the house of Ganga Ram (the father of appellant Prakash). She also mentioned therein that Dhanna Lai's two companions had bolted the house from outside. Thus, she had not mentioned in report Ex.R 4 that all the three accused persons had forcibly dragged her inside that house or that her mouth was plugged by a towel. But during trial she invented a new story and told that all the three accused persons had plugged her mouth, they took her inside the house of Prakash and that thereafter Kajod and Prakash came outside while appellant Dhanna Lal remained inside that house and tried to molest her. Later on, she stated that appellant Dhanna Lal had committed rape without her consent by felling her down on the floor inside the room. In the report, she stated that the alleged incident took place at about 1.30 PM. whereas in her examination-in-chief as also in the cross-examination, she stated that the said incident took place in the morning at about 9.10 A.M. The learned trial Judge also ignored this material contradiction on the ground that the prosecutrix was a minor and uneducated village girl and that when she was confronted with the portion A to B of her police statement Ex.R 2, then she rectified her mistake and stated that she had gone for easing herself at about 1.00 PM. and that by mistake she had earlier deposed that the alleged incident had taken place at 9.10 A.M. FW 6 Lila Bai has unsuccessfully tried to improve her statement before the trial court. Firstly she wrongly stated that her age was 12/10 years. Secondly, she stated that all the three accused persons had plugged her mouth and took her inside the house and that thereafter Prakash and Kajod had gone outside while Dhanna Lal remain inside. Thirdly, she reiterated more than once that the alleged incident had taken place in the morning at 9.10. A.M. but later on changed her version and told that that incident had taken place at 1.00. PM. In her cross-examination she again changed her version and stated that she did not know as to who had plugged her mouth. She once again changed her statement and told that appellant Dhanna Lal had closed her mouth. She stated that all the three accused persons had taken her dragging inside the house but no injury was caused on her heels. Once again she changed her version and told that all the accused persons had lifted her and taken her inside the house and since the accused person had also closed her eyes, she could not say as to which of the accused person had caught hold which part of her body. Thus, she has unsuccessfully tried to change her initial version given 'in written report Ex.P. 4 that appellant Dhanna Lal had caught hold of her hand and forcibly dragged her inside the house. She did not mention in report Ex.P. 4 that all the accused persons had either caught hold of her or dragged her or lifted her or had closed her eyes while taking her inside the house. She also did not give such a version in her police statement Ex.P 2, when she was confronted with the initial version reported in her report Ex.R 4 and police statement Ex.P. 2 on these materials facts, she utterly failed to give any explanation for these materials omissions and improvements. 16. PW 6 Ms. Lila Bai specifically stated that she did not know the accused persons previously because she had come to village Lakhariya for the first time, that the names of the accused persons were mentioned by PW 8 Jai Shankar, who had scribed written report Ex.R 4. 16. PW 6 Ms. Lila Bai specifically stated that she did not know the accused persons previously because she had come to village Lakhariya for the first time, that the names of the accused persons were mentioned by PW 8 Jai Shankar, who had scribed written report Ex.R 4. Thus, as per her testimony, she did not know the accused persons. In such circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the investigation officer to get conducted the identification parade of the accused persons. But no such test identification parade was conducted. This negligence on the part of the Investigation Officer also adversely affects the prosecution case. Ms. Lila Bai also deposed that at the time of committing rape appellant Dhanna Lal had caught hold of her hands and that she had cried two- three times. During trial she did not say that appellant Dhanna Lal wrapped a towel around her mouth and as such she could not raise any alarm. On the other hand, she deposed that while the appellant committed rape upon her, she had cried two-three times while in her written report Ex.R 4 she had mentioned that appellant Dhanna Lal had wrapped a towel around her mouth and that after committing rape when he released her from his grips then she had removed the towel and raised alarm, which attracted his Bhabhi (Smt. Kani Bai). 17. PW 6 Smt. Lila Bai further told that when she came outside the house, besides Smt. Kani Bai, PW 8 Jai Shankar and many other ladies were standing there. On the other hand, PW 8 Jai Shankar has stated that he had reached village Lakheriya on that day at about 3.00 P.M. Moreover, PW 5 Kani Bai and PW 7 Mohan Lal have also not stated that at that time Jai Shankar was present there. Thus, it is abundantly apparent that the statement of prosecutrix Lila Bai is replete with major contradictions of Himalayan magnitude and material inconsistencies. Her statement has been inconsistent throughout and the same has also not been corroborated by any oral or material evidence. Thus, to my mind, Ms. Lila Bai is not a credible witness and her testimony is not of sterling worth. 18. Her statement has been inconsistent throughout and the same has also not been corroborated by any oral or material evidence. Thus, to my mind, Ms. Lila Bai is not a credible witness and her testimony is not of sterling worth. 18. PW 5 Smt. Kani Bai aged 20-25 years deposed that on the day of incident Lila Bai had gone for easing herself, that when she did not return after a considerable long time, she went to search for her to `Guwadi' (place where people go for latrine), but she was not present there, she deposed that thereafter she came back and stood outside the door of her house, which is situated just opposite to the house of appellant Prakash and that at that time Prakash was standing outside his house. She, therefore, inquired from him as to who was inside his house because she had noticed that the door of Prakash's house was shaking. Prakash denied that nobody was inside the house. Kani Bai stated that thereafter she again asked Prakash, whereupon he took out the key and asked her to open the door. She told that at that time many persons had assembled there. She stated that when she again insisted, then he opened the door and thereupon appellant Dhanna Lal came out from there and went away and after him Lila Bai had also come out. At that time she told Lila Bai that since her house was situated just opposite to that house she ought to have cried or raised an alarm to which the latter told that she could not raise any alarm because her mouth was plugged. As mentioned earlier, Ms. Lila Bai deposed that she had cried thrice, which attracted Kani Bai. Again there is material contradiction in the testimony of Lila Bai and Kani Bai on this count. The Investigation Officer did not recover that towel nor any such towel was found at the place of occurrence when he inspected the site. In such circumstances, Kani Bai also does not corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix. 19. PW 9 Dr. P.P. Bansal stated that on 13.8.94 at 6.00 PM. he had medically examined the prosecutrix, that her breasts were developed, that she had 13 upper and 13 lower teeth, that she had black hair at pubis and auxiliary pit. In such circumstances, Kani Bai also does not corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix. 19. PW 9 Dr. P.P. Bansal stated that on 13.8.94 at 6.00 PM. he had medically examined the prosecutrix, that her breasts were developed, that she had 13 upper and 13 lower teeth, that she had black hair at pubis and auxiliary pit. He specifically stated that he did not notice any external injury over her body nor any injury on her genitalia. Her hymen was absent. He also did not notice any tenderness, redness or sign of inflammation inside or outside her vagina. He also took the vaginal swab and pubic hair for medical examination. He deposed that in his opinion Smt. Lila Bai was in the habit of regular intercourse and that there was no sign of recent intercourse with her. He, however, reserved his final opinion till the receipt of medical examination. The prosecution has not submitted the chemical examination report of the State FSL. In such circumstances, the testimony of Dr. RR Bansal does not corroborate the statement of the prosecutrix. If the prosecutrix was subjected to rape against her consent then, in such circumstances, her garment would have torn out and she must have received external or internal injury on her body and private parts. She also did not raise any alarm and remained inside the house for a pretty long period. In her report Ex.R 4, she clearly mentioned that since her Ghaghra had become wet so she had washed the same. Thus she also destroyed that evidence. PW 14 Dalip Singh, ASI, seized the Ghaghra of the prosecutrix on the same day vide seizure memo Ex.R 3, but no vaginal swabs (sic) were found thereon. All these circumstances indicate that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 20. In Koja Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.J. 1575 , the statement of the prosecutrix was inconsistent and shaky and the same was not corroborated by any medical evidence. The explanation given by the prosecutrix for not raising any hue and cry was far from satisfactory. The Chemical Examination Report of the FSL regarding the vaginal swab and the stains on garments was not produced by the prosecution. There was inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the FIR. The explanation given by the prosecutrix for not raising any hue and cry was far from satisfactory. The Chemical Examination Report of the FSL regarding the vaginal swab and the stains on garments was not produced by the prosecution. There was inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the FIR. It was held that the conviction of the appellant Under section 376 Indian Penal Code was not proper and the same was quashed. Similar are the facts of the instant case. 21. It is true that in rape cases a conviction can be based even on the testimony of the prosecutrix but the sine qua non for it is that her testimony should be straight-forward, natural, reliable and of sterling worth. But in the case on hand the testimony of Ms. Lila Bai lacks credibility. 22. In Sujan Singh v. State, 1991 RCC 159 , it has been held that the story of the prosecutrix can be relied upon even if there is no corroboration by other oral evidence but then the story should be consistent and probable and if some other corroboratory evidence is possible then such evidence should come out in the form of medical corroboration or some other circumstances and that the absence of injury on the body and private parts of the prosecutrix make out a very strong circumstance to make it probable that it was a case of consent or that the case has been falsely made out. 23. For the reasons mentioned above, in my considered view, the learned trial Judge has not scanned, scrutinised, discussed and evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this in right perspective and committed grave error in ignoring the material contradictions, significant inconsistencies and inherent improbablities. No overt act of appellant Prakash @ Om Prakash suggesting abetment of the crime has been proved. The prosecution has thus, utterly failed to successfully bring home the offence Under section 376, Indian Penal Code against appellant Dhanna Lal and Under section 376/109 Indian Penal Code against appellant Om Prakash. Similarly offence Under section 342 Indian Penal Code has also not been established beyond reasonable doubt against them. Hence their conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 24. The prosecution has thus, utterly failed to successfully bring home the offence Under section 376, Indian Penal Code against appellant Dhanna Lal and Under section 376/109 Indian Penal Code against appellant Om Prakash. Similarly offence Under section 342 Indian Penal Code has also not been established beyond reasonable doubt against them. Hence their conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 24. In the premise of the above discussion, I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of appellants Dhanna Lal and Prakash @ Om Prakash and acquit them for the offences Under sections 376 & 376/109 and 342 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Prakash is on bail and his bail bonds stand discharged. Appellant Dhanna Lal, who is at present lodged in Central Jail, Kota, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******