JUDGMENT 1. - All the three appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp at Deedwana in Sessions Case No. 3/83 on 7.3.1984. All the three appeals arise out of the same order and same sessions trial, therefore, they are disposed of together. The learned counsel were heard in all the three matters. The learned Public Prosecutor was heard on all the three matters and they also agreed that the appeals should be disposed of by a common order. 2. The prosecution story is as under : 3. On 2.8.82 in the night at about 2.00 a.m. the prosecutrix Geeta and Shanti were returning home from fair festival. When they were returning home, they were followed by the accused persons who caught hold of them so that their escorts run away and raped each of them alternatively. Information about rape was communicated to the father of the prosecutrix and the father-in-law of the prosecutrix who reached the place of occurrence, took the women and went home and thereafter on the next day, the first information report was lodged. As per the first information report, certain arrests of the accused persons were made and after investigation, sessions trial No. 3/83 was commenced charging all the four accused persons of committing rape on these two women. After the investigation was over, evidence was recorded of 15 prosecution witnesses and on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that 3 of the 5 accused persons were guilty of rape. He proceeded to convict them as per the impugned order and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment as aforesaid. The convicted accused persons have came up in three individual appeals as aforesaid which can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused persons and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and have re-appreciated the evidence. From the re-appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix, I find it impossible to sustain the order of conviction as according to me acceptance of the entire evidence of prosecutrix will not sufficient to record conviction or affirm the order of conviction. 5. Geeta who was aged about 19 years when the rape was committed, is examined as PW 3. From the re-appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix, I find it impossible to sustain the order of conviction as according to me acceptance of the entire evidence of prosecutrix will not sufficient to record conviction or affirm the order of conviction. 5. Geeta who was aged about 19 years when the rape was committed, is examined as PW 3. This witness has stated the names of all the six accused persons namely Laliya, Chhotia, Ishaqiya, Gani Khan, Ibrahim and Asgar Khan. She deposed that out of these, Ibrahim is not in Court as he is not prosecuted being a minor. She says that she identifies all the five accused persons. The prosecutrix Geeta then proceeded to state that after they were about 700 ft. away from the fair site and near a pond, the accused persons surrounded them and assaulted Lakha Ram. The witness along with other tried to save Lakha Ram on which the accused left Lakha and caught hold of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix Geeta then states that she was thrown on the ground by Laliya and he raped her. laliya was followed by Ishqiya and Ishaqiya was followed by Ibrahim who according to the statement of this very witness was a minor. The witness does not state about anything being done by Gani Khan and Asgar Khan and both of them have been acquitted. She then states that when she was being raped, Shanti was standing few fit away and she was also raped. It is necessary to note verbatim what the witness has says in this regard : " ykyh;k us mlh txg iVd fn;k o esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;kA esjs is'kkc djus dh txg ij mlus vius is'kkc djus dh txg Mkyh [kksVk dke fd;kA ykyk ds ckn vfHk;qDr&bZ'kkd us Hkh esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;k vkSj viuh is'kkc djus dh txg esjh is'kkc djus dh txg esa MkyhA mlds ckn vfHk;qDr&bczkghe us esjs lkFk mlh rjg esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;kA eSaus NqM+kus dh cgqr dksf'k'k dh ysfdu esjs eqag ij diM+k cka/k fn;k Fkk vkSj eqag ij Bksd ihB dh FkhA 'kkfUr ,d dne nwj ij Fkh mlds lkFk Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k us [kksVk dke fd;kA " 6. The witness has been thoroughly cross-examined and she has stated that the rape by each individual was continued for brief time and described the time as equal to that needed to roast a "roti". The witness has been thoroughly cross-examined and she has stated that the rape by each individual was continued for brief time and described the time as equal to that needed to roast a "roti". 7. The evidence of Shanti, the other woman who was raped has deposed as PW 4. This witness also gives the detail description of the individual of assaulting and other persons and states that she was raped by Chhotia, Gani Khan and Asgar Khan. She has deposed that when she was raped, her eyes were tied up and she was therefore, unable to identify any of the assailants, though, she had seen them behind her when they were coming towards their village from the fair festival. This witness has also deposed that when she being raped by Chhotia, other two men were standing there. In cross-examination, she has admitted that her eyes were tied up before she was being raped and there is therefore, no question of her being to identify the accused. 8. The rest of the evidence of those witnesses who stated in the Court as to what happened about the incident of rape, they are not eye-witnesses but their narration is not substantially corroborated by deposition of the prosecutrix and hence, I find that conviction is not possible. This is for the simple reason that the eyes of the prosecutrix were tied up and therefore she was unable to identify any of the accused persons. In so far as the prosecutrix Geeta is concerned, she has identified three persons as her assailants and has stated that these three persons raped her and when one person rapping her others were waiting. If this testimony is affected, there was no body around to rape Shanti, if Shanti is to be accepted, therefore, there was no body around to rape Geeta as both the witnesses did not mention any accused or participation or presence of Asgar, Ibrahim or Gard Khan and therefore, they have been rightly acquitted by the trial Court. The situation which appears after entire evidence is scrutinised that when Geeta was raped, Shanti was free and when Shanti was raped, Geeta was free and yet none of them have chosen to run away. Therefore, their entire testimony becomes seriously doubtful. The situation which appears after entire evidence is scrutinised that when Geeta was raped, Shanti was free and when Shanti was raped, Geeta was free and yet none of them have chosen to run away. Therefore, their entire testimony becomes seriously doubtful. One of them, Shanti very candidly admits that her eyes were tied up and therefore, no one can be identified by her and she has not deposed anywhere in the testimony that she knew the accused persons so well as she could understand or identify them by the sounds, they were making or by their talk, such being not the case. The evidence of Shanti is unacceptable, similar the case of Geeta and hence, I find it unsafe to affirm the order of conviction as passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. In the result, the appeals succeeds and are allowed. The orders of conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused persons are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******