JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 17.1.82 whereby the accused appellant Ramrai was found guilty under Section 376 of the IPC and awarded a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine it was ordered that he will further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. According to the prosecution story PW 1 Shanti wife of Dhanna Meena on 15.10.81 at 11.30 AM lodged an oral FIR Ex.P.2 at police station Devali, Distt.Tonk. 2. According to the FIR the prosecutrix had gone to ease herself in the evening of 14.10.81 at about 7-8 PM outside the village where she was caught by the accused and she was subjected to rape. According to the FIR she raised hue and cry and her husband PW2 Dhanna came to her rescue. The accused ran away and next day at 11.30 AM the FIR was lodged. 3. A case under Section 376 of the IPC was registered and the accused was challaned in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk from where the matter was sent to the Sessions Judge, Tonk for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Prosecution side examined PW-1 Shanti, PW2 Dhanna, PW3 Mohini, PW 4 Bhuwana, PW 5 Dr. Ramgopal and PW 6 Banshidhar in support of the prosecution story. The defence of the accused was to the effect that one Jagdish had developed illicit relations with Mohini (elder sister of PW 1 Shanti) and later also with Shanti and on 14.10.81 Shanti was seen with Jagdish in a compromising position and certain village people detected the incident. Next day the Panchayat was convened and the accused advised PW 2 Dhanna to be careful about his wife. This enraged Dhanna and Jagdish motivated Dhanna to lodge the FIR against the accused. Hence, a delayed FIR was lodged next day at about noon although according to the FIR Ex.P.2 the place of occurrence is hardly 5 kms. away from the police station. DW 1 Pokhar, DW 2 Ram Singh and PW 3 Hema were examined in defence. They have supported the aforesaid defence version. The learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 17.1.82 as mentioned above. 4. away from the police station. DW 1 Pokhar, DW 2 Ram Singh and PW 3 Hema were examined in defence. They have supported the aforesaid defence version. The learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 17.1.82 as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the appellant and I am of the view that the appeal requires to be accepted. The evidence which has come on record is highly suspect and it upon Smt. Shanti. Her contention has been that the incident took place when she went to answer the call of the nature. However, in cross-examination she had to admit that there was no 'Lota' or other utensil, which is unusual. She further went to explain that she had left without `Lota' and instructed her sister Mohini to subsequently bring water for her. Needless to say that this is highly unusual. Moreover, Mohini has not supported the above version although she was cross-examined on the point. 5. PW 2 Dhanna has put himself as an eye witness but his testimony is contrary to the site plan Ex.P.5. According to Dhanna the incident took place outside the 'Baada' and he found the accused lying on his wife outside the 'Baada'. However, the site plan Ex.P.5 shows that the incident took place inside the Baada of the accused. This inconsistency is fatal to the prosecution story. It is not explained as to how she went to the Baada of the accused. PW 1 Shanti nowhere says that the incident took place outside the Baada of the accused. 6. As pointed out earlier there is delay in lodging of the FIR and there is no satisfactory explanation for the same. PW 2 Dhanna has contradicted his statement Ex.D.1 recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It has come in prosecution evidence that the Panchayat collected in the matter and enquired from the accused about the incident and he allegedly made an extra judicial confession before the Panchayat. I find that the evidence in this respect is highly unsatisfactory and no conviction can be made on its basis. I find that the evidence in this respect is highly unsatisfactory and no conviction can be made on its basis. Pokhar is said to be one of the members of the Panchayat but he as DW 1 has stated that the Panchayat was never called in respect of the accused but the same was convened to investigate the incident between Shanti and Jagdish. He has further stated that when Jagdish and Shanti were detected in a compromising position Shanti was beaten by her husband, He has also admitted that the said Jagdish had intimacy with the elder sister of Shanti. Pokhar is a cousin of PW2 Dhanna. 7. Be that as it may I find that the evidence is highly unsatisfactory. In view of what has been said above the conclusion of conviction cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned trial court is set aside. The accused is acquitted. The amount of fine if deposited shall be refunded to the accused.Appeal allowed. *******