JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order of conviction recorded in Sessions case No. 119/1983 on 31.3.1984 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 2. The prosecution story giving rise to the present appeal stated briefly is that a first information report was lodged on 2.7.1983 which was sent to the police station for registration on 5.7.1983. On the basis of this report, Investigation was commenced and the appellant was prosecuted under section 376, 352 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the investigation, he was chord under section 376/511, 452, 352 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and after recording the necessary evidence as led by the prosecution the learned Judge recorded an order of conviction under section 452, 323, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing the accused to suffer imprisonment for one year under section 452 and 323 and two years under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. It is this order which is impugned in this appeal by the learned counsel on the grounds mentioned in the memo appeal as also verbally canvassed. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the records and re-appreciated the evidence. On re-appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix, I find the order of conviction unsustainable in law. The prosecutrix has deposed that to there was rape on her and intercourse was complete. The learned Judge has disbelieved partly while coming to the conclusion that there was only an attempt to commit rape. Apart from this fact, the prosecutrix has stated that the intercourse was compete and her clothes were soiled with semen. She has then stated that the cloths were seized by the police. On none of these points, the is prosecutrix has corroborated by adequate evidence. There is no seizure memo filed in the court nor the clothes allegedly seized by the police are produced. It is also not proved that those cloths had semen stains on it which related to the accused. In effect, substantial corroborative evidence which could have been led before the court has either been withheld or forthcoming in any case to believe the prosecutrix in such circumstances improper and on this ground alone, the appeal is liable to be accepted. It is also not proved that those cloths had semen stains on it which related to the accused. In effect, substantial corroborative evidence which could have been led before the court has either been withheld or forthcoming in any case to believe the prosecutrix in such circumstances improper and on this ground alone, the appeal is liable to be accepted. It is accordingly accepted. The order of conviction is set-aside. The bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal Allowed - Accused acquitted. *******