Judgment G.S.Choube and P.K.Sarkar JJ. 1. Appellant No. 1 Rameshwar Thakur @ Nemi Chand Thakur (A-1) in Cr. Appeal No, 13 of 1989 (R) ; appellant No. 2 Gahnu Mahto (A-2) in Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 1989 (R) ; and appellant No. 3 Chandra Mahto (A-3) in Cr. Appeal No. 23 of 1989(R) were tried together in S.T. No. 15 of 1988 ; therefore, the above-mentioned appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Secs. 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the former offence and R.I. for 10 years for the latter ; appellant No. 2(A-2) and appellant No. 3(A-3) have been convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and likewise sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, while appellant No. 2 (A-2) has been convicted under Sec. 376, appellant No. 3(A-3) has been convicted under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code and both of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, each. However, the sentences of the appellants have been directed to run concurrently. 3. Appellants were put on trial on the basis of F.I.R. (Ext. 3) lodged by prosecutrix Somari Devi (P.W. 1), wife of deceased Dukhi Mahto of village Laiyo Basti within Mandu police station in the district of Hazaribagh. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that at about 1 in the night between 21-9-1987 and 22-9-1987 when the prosecutrix was sleeping inside the house situated at Laiyo Basti along with her husband Dukhi Mahto (deceased), some people knocked at the door and asked to open the same. Her husband enquired as to who they were. One of them stated that he was Gahnu (A-2). Consequently, her husband opened the door and all the three appellants entered inside. Appellant No. 2 asked for water, but she disclosed that there was no water in the house. In the meantime, appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 overpowered her and took her inside the room and committed rape on her. At that time appellant No. 2 had overpowered her husband and was threatening him not to raise any alarm. When she cried in pain on being raped by appellant Nos. In the meantime, appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 overpowered her and took her inside the room and committed rape on her. At that time appellant No. 2 had overpowered her husband and was threatening him not to raise any alarm. When she cried in pain on being raped by appellant Nos. 1 and 3, her husband got enraged and netagled with the miscreants. Consequently appellant Nos. 1 and 3 threw her husband on ground and appellant No. 3 climbed on his chest and appellant No. 1 struck him with Gupti, which he was carrying Appellant No. 2 had at that time overpowered her. After the appellants escaped from the house threatening her to be killed if she disclosed their names to any body. Next morning the village Sarpanch (P.W. 6) sent a written report to the police. Out Post at West Bokaro regarding the murder of the deceased by some unknown persons, on which a Station Diary Entry was made at the police outpost and a Sub-Inspector (P.W. 4) accompanied by an Assistant Sub Inspector and some constables went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix on 22-9-1987 at 10.30 a.m. A case under Secs. 302 and 376 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation followed. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Hazaribagh for post mortem. The prosecutrix was also produced before a Medical Officer on 23-9-1987 for her examination. Charge-sheet was submitted against them and they were put on trial on charges, for which they have been found guilty by the Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh. The appellants denied the charges ; pleaded innocence and false implication. Their defence is that the prosecutrix is a woman of easy virtues and her husband was running a brothel for which villagers, particularly appellants, were lodging protest against their such action. Therefore, they have been falsely implicated taking advantage of the murder of the deceased by some unknown culprits. 4. To prove the charges the prosecution examined 6 witnesses including the Investigating Officer, the village Sarpanch and two doctors who performed autopsy and examined the prosecutrix. 5. Therefore, they have been falsely implicated taking advantage of the murder of the deceased by some unknown culprits. 4. To prove the charges the prosecution examined 6 witnesses including the Investigating Officer, the village Sarpanch and two doctors who performed autopsy and examined the prosecutrix. 5. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh had held that the appellants committed murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common intention ; and that appellants No. 1 and 3 committed rape on the prosecutrix and appellant No. 2 abetted in commission of the rape. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in all the three appeals have contended that the conclusion of the guilt of the appellants has been arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on the sole testimony of P.W. 1, which is not trustworthy. She has made contradictory statements, besides that there is absolutely no evidence that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse, that too by two persons, in the manner alleged by her. They have also submitted that there is no corroborative evidence ; not a single neighbour has come to depose that the prosecutrix had disclosed to them the names of assailants of her husband or of those who committed rape on her. Therefore, the points for consideration in the present appeals are whether the appellants were in any way involved in the murder of the deceased Dukhi Mahto and further whether the prosecutrix had been raped. 7. P.W. 1 Somari Devi has stated that during the night when she was in her matrimonial home along with her husband, some one knocked the door from outside. When her husband enquired about him, the person outside disclosed his identity as appellant No. 2. Consequently, her husband opened the door and all the appellants entered inside. She has further alleged that appellant No. 2 caught hold the collar of the shirt of her husband and asked where from he had brought the cycle. She raised alarm at that time. In the meantime, appellant Nos. 1 and 3 overpowered her and took her inside the room and committed sexual intercourse with her by force. After committing rape on her appellant No. 1 went to her husband and appellant No. 2 gagged her mouth and climbed over her chest. She raised alarm at that time. In the meantime, appellant Nos. 1 and 3 overpowered her and took her inside the room and committed sexual intercourse with her by force. After committing rape on her appellant No. 1 went to her husband and appellant No. 2 gagged her mouth and climbed over her chest. Appellant No. 3 threw her husband on ground and climbed over the chest and in that position appellant No. 1 struck her husband on his neck with Gupti. While leaving the house appellant No. 2 threatened her to drive her out of the village, if she disclosed the names to any body. In course of her evidence P.W. 1 has stated that Govind Mahto, Bhola Mahto, Thakur Mahto, Chaman Mahto, Kaila Ganjhu and Rebati Mahto are her neighbours. According to her, the wives of some of those neighbours arrived at her house, but she did not disclose the names of any of the assailants of her husband to them. In course of her Cross-examination she has also stated that she did not say anything about the occurrence to neighbours during the night. In the morning the Sarpanch had arrived at her house accompanied by appellant No. 2. Sarpanch asked her if she had identified any of the assailants and then she disclosed that she identified none, 8. From the evidence of P.W. 4 it appears that Sarpanch had sent a written report to the outpost respecting the murder of the deceased. However, no name as assailant had been disclosed therein. That information report sent by Sarpanch has been recorded in the station diary as Station Diary Entry No. 383 dated 22-9-1987 at 9.30 a.m., which is Ext. 7. The original written information sent by Sarpanch is Ext. 8. These documents contain a cryptic statement that at about 2 or 3 in the night on 21-9-1987 Dukhi Mahto had been murdered. Naturally, when the sole eyewitness, namely, P.W. 1 informed the Sarpanch that she had not identified any of the assailants, the Sarpanch had sent information to the police station regarding the murder of the deceased without disclosing the name(s) of the assailant(s). When further persuaded in cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated that at first she did not disclose the name(s) of any assailant(s) even when the sub-Inspector of Police had arrived. She had stated that she told the sub-Inspector that she had not identified any body. When further persuaded in cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated that at first she did not disclose the name(s) of any assailant(s) even when the sub-Inspector of Police had arrived. She had stated that she told the sub-Inspector that she had not identified any body. However, the Sub-Inspector advised her to disclose the name boldly even if she had been threatened ; and, thereafter, he took her to police station. 9. P.W. 6 Ram Kishore Singh of the same village, the Sarpanch of Laiyo Gram Kuthery and a teacher, has stated that when he went to the house of the deceased in the morning on getting information of the occurrence, the prosecutrix did not disclose the name of any of the assailants to him. He has further stated that as a matter of fact at the first instance the prosecutrix did not name any body when the police arrived. However, when co-villager Lohar Mahto arrived there and had conference with her privately, she disclosed the names of appellants as the assailants of her husband. Therefore, it is manifest from the evidence of P.W. 1 herself as well as that of P.W. 6 that until the police arrived and the F.I.R. was lodged, P.W. 1 did not disclose the name of any of the assailants of her husband or for that matter of the persons who had allegedly committed rape on her. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the sole testimony of P.W. 1 on the simple ground that she did not disclose the names of the assailants because she was threatened by appellant No. 2. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that only threat given to her by appellant No. 2 was that if she disclosed the names of the appellants including himself, she would not be allowed to stay in the village. In our opinion, this was not sufficient ground to P.W. 1 for not disclosing the names of the assailants to any body, even confidentially. In course of her cross-examination P.W. 1 has admitted that she was having illicit relationship with one Lohar Mahto of the same village even during the life time of her husband and gave birth to a child because of such relationship with him. However, she has stated that she did so with the consent of her husband because he wanted their to his huge property. However, she has stated that she did so with the consent of her husband because he wanted their to his huge property. The witness has further proceeded to say that since she was having illicit relation-ship with Lohar Mahto, all and sundry of the village used to have sex with her even against her wishes. She has also stated that villagers including the appellants used to complain to her husband alleging that he was running a brothel house. Such being the conduct and character of P.W. 1, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on what she has stated against the appellants. Therefore, even though we find that there is ample evidence that her husband Dukhi Mahto had been killed inside the house during the night by cutting his neck as found by P.W. 2 Shashi Bhushan Singh who performed post-mortem on the dead body, the evidence that these appellants committed murder in the manner alleged is not of such a nature that it should be accepted without any demur. 10. Regarding commission of rape by appellant Nos. 1 and 3 on the prosecutrix there is no material except her statement made on oath. The law is well settled that conviction of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the victim provided her evidence is found to be trust-worthy and she is of such character that it is not expected of her to lie inviting slur to her character. In the event of her being of blemished character some sort of corroboration is the rule of prudence. In the present case, we find that prosecutrix is a woman of easy virtues having sex with all and sundry of the village. She is still having illicit relationship with her paramour Lohar Mahto and had given birth to a male child after the death of her husband. Her testimony respecting rape on her is not corroborated by extraneous evidence. P.W. 3 Dr. Ganesh Prasad of Sadar Hospital at Hazaribagh had examined her on 23-9-1987 at 4 p.m., but did not find any evidence of rape having been committed on her. He did not find even scratch on her person, although she has stated that she was thrown on the ground and 2 persons committed rape on her against her wishes ; and lastly, appellant No. 2 climbed over her chest and pressed it. He did not find even scratch on her person, although she has stated that she was thrown on the ground and 2 persons committed rape on her against her wishes ; and lastly, appellant No. 2 climbed over her chest and pressed it. She was even gagged by putting cloths in her mouth, still no external injury was found on her person to show that any violence was used against her. The Investigating Officer did not find any mark of semen, etc., at the place where she was allegedly subjected to sexual intercourse. Likewise, there is nothing on the record to show that when the police went to the place of occurrence or even afterwards her soiled clothes had been produced or shown. Therefore, absence mark of seminal stains at the place of occurrence or on the clothes of the prosecutrix rules out the possibility of rape having been committed on her in the manner alleged. She has stated that there was scuffle but her bangles were not broken. However, her hairs were got uprooted and fallen at that place. Nothing of the sort appears to have been found by the Investigating Officer in course of inspection of that place. Therefore, absence of any ocular evidence to corroborate the story of rape on the prosecutrix by appellant Nos. 1 and 3 also falsifies the charge of rape against them. 11. On consideration of the materials on record, we find that on evidence, it cannot be held that the appellants were involved in the murder of the deceased and that rape was committed on the prosecutrix. Therefore, all three appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellants set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged from the liability of their respective bail-bonds.