JUDGMENT 1. - The prosecutrix Lichma lodged the complaint before the police in the mid night of 14/15.5.1981 that when she was sleeping in her house with her children, her brother-in-law and her mother-in-law the accused Darshan Singh sat on her and committed forcible rape on her, thereby, committed an offence under sections 376, 511 & 450 IPC. The trial Court did not believe the version of the prosecutrix regarding the offence under sections 376 & 511 1PC, but the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under sections 354 IPC and 451 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- and six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence under section 451 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel Shri Niranjan Gaur has taken me through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. He rightly submitted that when the trial Court dis-believed her version for the offence under sections 376 & 511 IPC then the version of the prosecutrix could not have been accepted for the purpose of offence under sections 354 & 451 IPC. The circumstances are such which compels the Court to dis-believe the version of the prosecutrix. The very fact that she did not raise shout and allowed the accused to go away and lodged the complaint next day after considerable time coupled with the theory of enmity, strained relation of the accused with her husband, it would be very difficult for this Court to rely upon the evidence of such witness. The story appears to be cock and bull story, which is un-reliable. In my view, the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused for the offence under sections 354 & 451 IPC. 3. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction recorded by the trial Court is set aside. Fine if paid shall be refunded to the accused.Appeal allowed. *******