JUDGMENT This appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1989 by the III ASJ, Dhar, in ST No. 262/88 whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 376 of the IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI. It was admitted that the field of the prosecutrix Jasodabai (PW 1) is 3 furlongs away from the well of the appellant. The prosecutrix lodged FIR against the appellant. He was arrested and was got medically examined and his 'Chaddi' and 'Dhoti' were also seized. Prosecution case, in brief was that on 31.5.1988 prosecutrix lasodabai (PW 2), her husband Kanhiyalal (PW 4) her mother-in-law Dhapubai (PW 3) and her nephew Gordhanlal and her son aged about 7-8 years had gone to their field.. At about 5 p.m. children felt thirsty, therefore, Dhapubai (PW 3) sent the prosecutrix to fetch water from the well of the appellant. She pulled water and filled her pot and when she was going to lift the pot, the appellant caught her hands and dragged her into his lemon garden and fell her down, raised her 'Ghaghra' untied his 'Dhoti' and inserted his male organ into her vagina al)d committed rape on her. She raised cry which was heard by Leelabai, wife of the appellant and Haryan, his servant, but they did not come to her rescue. When the appellant released her, she took her pot and went weepingly to her field and narrated the incident to her husband Kanhiyalal. They immediately came to their house. They could not manage for money, therefore, on the next day Kanhiyalal and the prosecutrix alongwith Shankerlal went to P.S. Badnawar and lodged FIR, Ex. P-3, which was recorded by Babulal Sisodiya (PW 5), SHO P.S. Badnawar. He immediately sent Jasodabai to Primary Health Centre Badnawar where Dr. Smt. Lata Chouhan (PW I) examined her and she did not found any injury on the body of the prosecutrix except one thorn injury on her right index finger. Dr. Chouhan prepared slides of her vaginal smear and also took her 'Ghaghra' and sent it to the Police Station. The Investigating Officer S.K. Mishra (PW 6) visited the spot and prepared spot map. Ex. P-4. On 2.6.1988 the appellant was arrested and was got medically examined. His 'Chaddi' and 'Dhoti were seized and all these articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL Sagar. The Chemical Examiner vide his report, Ex. The Investigating Officer S.K. Mishra (PW 6) visited the spot and prepared spot map. Ex. P-4. On 2.6.1988 the appellant was arrested and was got medically examined. His 'Chaddi' and 'Dhoti were seized and all these articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL Sagar. The Chemical Examiner vide his report, Ex. P-6, opined that 'Chaddi' (underwear) and slides prepared from vaginal smear of the prosecutrix contained semen stains. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. The learned Trial Judge after appreciation of evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal. Shri Hada, L/c for the Appellant, submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated. The prosecution story is improbable and unnatural. He submitted that according to the prosecutrix, appellant's wife Leelabai, and his servant were working in the field 100 feet away from the well and a road passed by the well 2-3 furlongs away family members of the prosecutrix were working, how could the appellant over power 27 years young and stout prosecutrix. On the other hand Shri A. Salim, Panel Lawyer, supported the impugned. I considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. Prosecutrix Jasodabai (PW 2) deposed that on the day of incident she, her husband Kanhiyalal, her mother-in-law Dhapubai, her nephew Gordhan and her son were working in their field, at about 5 p.m. she went to fetch water on the well of the appellant, she filled the pot with water and when she was about to lift the pot, appellant came there, caught hold of her hands and dragged her into his lemon garden, felled her down, raised her 'Ghaghra', untied his 'Dhoti' and committed sexual intercourse with her. When she cried the appellant pressed her mouth. He got up and asked her not to tell this incident to any body. Leelabai wife of the appellant and his servant, Naryan, were also working near the place of the incident but they did not come for her rescue. She returned to the field and narrated the incident to her husband and they came to their house but they had no money to go to the police station and, therefore, they were on the next day to the police station and lodged the FIR. She returned to the field and narrated the incident to her husband and they came to their house but they had no money to go to the police station and, therefore, they were on the next day to the police station and lodged the FIR. Statement of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by her husband, Kanhiyalal (PW 4), and her mother-in-law Dhapubai (PW 3). She mentioned in the FIR. Ex. P-3, that the appellant caught hold of her hands and asked her to accompany him and thereafter he dragged her to his lemon garden and felled her down in the garden and committed rape on her against her will and consent. She told Leelabai that her husband had committed rape on her. Prosecution did not examine Leelabai and Naryan, it may be said that they were not going to support the prosecution, therefore, they were not examined but the prosecution could not assign any reason for not examining Naryan who was an independent witness. Argument of Shri Hada, L/c for the Appellant, that according to the prosecutrix, Leelabai, the wife of the appellant, and Naryan his servo.nt were working in the field only 100' away from the place of incident would not come to her rescue hearing her cries appears to be unnatural and improbable.Prosecutrix was 27 years old, stout and healthy lady, how the appellant could overpower her and drag her to the garden. At that time she did not raise hue and cry. She admitted in her cross-examination that she was wearing bangles on her wrist but they did not get broken in the scuffle. Argument of L/c for the appellant that had there been scuffle or the prosecutrix was dragged, the bangles would have been broken. She could have raised cry and loudly shouted her husband and her mother-in-law would have heard, cannot be said to be without substance. It was also unnatural for the wife of the appellant not to have come on the spot hearing cries of the prosecutrix. Prosecution could not give any reason for not examining Naryan, an independent witness. She also did not narrate the incident to her mother-in-law Dhapubai. She admitted that her daughter-in-law came there weeping but did not state any thing to her. Kanhiyalal stated that he narrated the incident to Kachru, Kaloo and Shankar but none of these witnesses were examined by the prosecution. She also did not narrate the incident to her mother-in-law Dhapubai. She admitted that her daughter-in-law came there weeping but did not state any thing to her. Kanhiyalal stated that he narrated the incident to Kachru, Kaloo and Shankar but none of these witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Looking to these inherent improbability it is not safe to put reliance on testimony of the prosecutrix Jasodabai. No injury of dragging was found on her elbows or legs or body. If any unwilling 27 years young lady is dragged in jungle she is bound to sustain some injuries on her body. Find of semen on the slides of vaginal semear of the prosecutrix and on Dhoti and Chaddi of the appellant is of no consequence as both them were living with their spouses and the slides were prepared next day and Dhoti and Chaddi were seized after two days. Llc for the appellant submitted that stigma was found on the gland pennis. The doctor, who examined the appellant, had not been examined, therefore, adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution that medical evidence was not supporting the prosecution story. In view of above, prosecution story appears to be suspicious and the appellant deserves benefit of doubt. In the result the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.