JUDGMENT Accused/appellant stands convicted for offence punishable under section 376 of IPC for having committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix Sangeeta and he has been sentenced to undergs RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- by judgment dt. 30.3.98 in S.T. No. 68/97 by Sessions Judge, Sidhi. The prosecution case stated in brief is that prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW 3) is the wife of Lalai (PW 5). On the date of incident i.e. 19.5.97 at 2.00 p.m. while she was alone in her house, the accused/appellant entered her house and after gagging her with a piece of cloth the accused/appellant forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. On Sangeeta shouting for help Sitaram and others came on the spot, whereupon accused/appellant ran away. Prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW 3) narrated the incident to her husband who returned on the same evening at 8.00 p.m. Report of the incident (Ex. P-3) was lodged by the prosecutrix on the next day of the incident, i.e. 20.5.97 at Police Station Bargawa, District Sidhi. Prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW 3) was sent for medical examination. Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW 4) medically examined her. No external injury was found on her person. Medical report is (Ex. P-4). After concluding investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. Learned trial Court framed charge under section 376 of IPC against the appellant. He abjured guilt. According to him he has been falsely implicated on account of his enmity with Chhotelal Singh Baghel, who is the employee of prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW 3) and her husband Lalai (PW 5). Learned counsel for appellant has contended that the statement of Sangeeta (PW 3) is unnatural and suffers from inherent infirmities. Her statement is also not supported by the medical report and therefore the conviction of accused/appellant is not justified. As against this, learned counsel for respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment. Narrating the incident, prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW 3) has stated that while she was alone in her house, the accused/appellant came there, forcibly threw her down on the cot, which broke down on account of her being pushed with force. Thereafter, accused/appellant committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW 3). Prosecutrix Sangeeta states that she was gagged during the incident by the accused/appellant. After the accused/appellant committed the offence, Sangeeta raised a cry of alarm, upon which Sitaram and others came there. Thereafter, accused/appellant committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW 3). Prosecutrix Sangeeta states that she was gagged during the incident by the accused/appellant. After the accused/appellant committed the offence, Sangeeta raised a cry of alarm, upon which Sitaram and others came there. Sangeeta (PW 3) has further stated that she sustained injuries on her back, on account of falling on the cot and breaking thereof. However Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW 4) did not find any injury on her person. It may further be noticed that Sangeeta (PW 3) has stated that she did not know the appellant from before the incident and that she was told the name of appellant by her aunt-in-law Fuljaria (PW 2) and Sitaram and others. Sitaram has not been examined in the case. Fuljaria (PW 2) states that she did not narrate the incident to anybody and is stating about it for the first time in the trial Court. It may further be noticed that Fuljaria (PW 2) does not state .that she had disclosed the name of accused/appellant to Sangeeta. The statement of Fuljaria (PW 2) that after the incident, the accused/appellant came out and remained standing there for sometime and thereafter left is also unnatural. The accused/appellant after committing the offence would have tried to escape at the earliest rather than keep standing at the door of the house of prosecutrix, as Fuljaria (PW 2) has stated. In the circumstances, the statement of Fuljaria (PW2) does not inspire confidence. It may further be noticed that prosecutrix Sangeeta states that she did not know the name of appellant from before the incident. In that case, identification parade should have been held during investigation. She has named the accused/appellant in the FIR., but she has not disclosed that she was not knowing the name of appellant from before the incident and that she was informed about the name by either Sitaram or Fuljaria (PW 2). It may also be noticed that if she was gagged, she could not have shouted and therefore it was not possible for Fuljaria (PW 2) to know about the incident and to come at the time of incident, while it was committed. In view of the above, the statement of Sangeeta (PW 3) and Fuljaria (PW 2) is most unnatural. It may also be noticed that if she was gagged, she could not have shouted and therefore it was not possible for Fuljaria (PW 2) to know about the incident and to come at the time of incident, while it was committed. In view of the above, the statement of Sangeeta (PW 3) and Fuljaria (PW 2) is most unnatural. If at the time of incident, the cot had broken down, as has been stated by the prosecutrix, she would have received grievous injuries, but the absence of any injury on the person of prosecutrix as well as the fact that the broken cot has not been seized during investigation negatives her statement. In the circumstances, the statement of Sangeeta (PW 3) is not of sterling quality and can by itself be not relied upon in view of the discrepancies in it. Accordingly, the finding of guilt of the learned trial Court against the accused/appellant does not appear to be justified. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction as well as the sentence of accused/appellant is set aside. He is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.