JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant was charged with offence under section 376 r/w Sections 511 & 354 IPC. The Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused-appellant from the charge under sections 376 & 511 IPC but has convicted him under section 354 IPC and has sentenced him for 1 year's R.I. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed in the year 1984. 2. The prosecution case is that on 29.8.1981, the prosecutrix Mst. Mangi was plucking ladies finger in her field in the evening. When she was in he field, the accused-Lakhma came to the place and caught hold of her breast and threw her on the ground. The accused lifted her Ghaghra whereupon she started shouting. On hearing her shouts, PW 2 Laxman came on the spot and the accused left her and ran away. In the incidence, her bangles were broken and she received injuries on her hands. The prosecutrix's father PW 4 Hukma Ram also arrived at the spot and the prosecutrix narrated the entire incidence. On 31.8.1991, the FIR Ex. P/2 was lodged in the Police Station by PW 4 Hukma Ram. 3. To prove the charge, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Mangi who has stated that when she was plucking ladies finger from her field, the accused came and caught hold of her breast and threw her on the ground. He lifted her Ghaghra but as on the spot, Laxman came, he left her and ran away from the place of incidence. She has stated that she received injuries on her legs, on her waist and on her hands and these injuries were shown to the doctor. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she has also received injuries on her breast and that was also shown to the doctor. 4. The other witness examined is PW 2 Laxman who has deposed that Mangi was plucking ladies finger in her field. He reached to the spot and saw that the accused has caught hold of the prosecutrix and threw her on the ground. The prosecutrix was lying on the ground and the accused was upon her. When he reached to the spot, seeing him, the accused left the place. He has admitted that he has not seen the torn blouse of Mangi. 5. The prosecutrix was lying on the ground and the accused was upon her. When he reached to the spot, seeing him, the accused left the place. He has admitted that he has not seen the torn blouse of Mangi. 5. In defence, it is the case of the accused that the prosecutrix's father Hama Ram owe him an amount of Rs. 7,000/-. When the demand of the said amount was made, he was given beating and later on, he was falsely implicated. This version of the defence was put to the prosecution witnesses PW 1 Mangi, PW 2 Laxman and PW 4 Hukma Ram who have denied the fact that the accused-Lakhma was given beating on the spot and that he was falsely implicated to avoid payment of loan amount. 6. Report Ex. P/2 FIR was lodged on 31.8.1981. In the FIR, the reason was given for late filing of report by Hukma Ram that he could not make the report immediately as he was out of station. This reason of late filing of the report although denied by the witness PW 4 Hukma Ram, it is in the FIR. If Hukma Ram was out of station then his presence at the spot at the time of incidence and the narration of story by the Prosecutrix to him immediately after the incidence is not correct. Mangi has stated that immediately after the incidence, her father reached to the spot and he was informed about the incidence. 7. PW 7 Guljari Lal, who has prepared the spot map, has stated that there were no plants of lady fingers and no lady fingers were found at the spot. That makes the story of prosecution doubtful that on the relevant day she was in the filed and was picking lady fingers. If no plant of lady finger was available in the field, then how could it be possible that she was plucking the lady fingers on that particular day. 8. PW 6 Dr. Rajendra Gupta, who has examined the prosecutrix, has not found any injuries on her person whereas she has deposed that she has received several injuries on her person. That also makes the prosecution story doubtful. The same doctor has examined the accused-Lakhma and has found 8 injuries on his person. 9. 8. PW 6 Dr. Rajendra Gupta, who has examined the prosecutrix, has not found any injuries on her person whereas she has deposed that she has received several injuries on her person. That also makes the prosecution story doubtful. The same doctor has examined the accused-Lakhma and has found 8 injuries on his person. 9. On overall consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the defence put forth by the accused-appellant is not probable. 10. Having considered all the evidence, I do not find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and sentence of Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and sentence of 1 year's R.I. is set aside.Appeal allowed. *******