JUDGMENT 1. - This Jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.2.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bundi by which he convicted the accused appellant under Section 376 and 341 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to undergo two months imprisonment on the first count and to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one week's imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in nut shell, is that Narbda wife of Papu Bheel alongwith her brother Basantha S/o Shri Mangi dal came to Police Station, Kota Dam (Dabi) and submitted oral report to the effect that about 10-15 days back she had gone to her parents at village Mehrana. Yesterday, her parents made her to run away and, therefore, she left Mehrana for Village Kharipur and came to Kunhari Petrol Pump, took lift in a truck and reached Kharipur crossing at 4.00 PM. while, she was going to her Village on her foot and when she reached near the drain of Gurdia Mahadev, Nathu Bheel of her village all of sudden came out of the drain and caught hold of her. He took her in his lap and went to the closure where he put her down behind the wall and committed rape on her against her wishes. She raised cries, but the accused left her only after fulfilling his sexual lust. Accused also threatened her to kill if she narrates the incident in the village. Thereafter she reached her home and informed her brother and brother's wife about the incident. She explained that on account of non-availability of transportation, she could not come and lodge the report in the evening. On the basis of this report, police registered a case vide FIR No. 56/96, Ex.P. 1 for offence under Sections 341 and 376 IPC and proceeded to investigate the case. During investigation the police got to prosecutrix medically examined, vide Ex. On the basis of this report, police registered a case vide FIR No. 56/96, Ex.P. 1 for offence under Sections 341 and 376 IPC and proceeded to investigate the case. During investigation the police got to prosecutrix medically examined, vide Ex. P 3 prepared site plan Ex.P. 6, seized Ghagra of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P. 7 and recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellant under Section 376 and 341 IPC in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, who committed the case ta the court of Sessions. 3. The learned trial court after considering the material on record, framed charges against the accused. The charges were read over to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined PW. 1 Smt. Narbda prosecutrix, PW 2 Roshan Bai, sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the prosecutrix, PW 3 Bishna, brother of the prosecutrix, PW 4 Ramesh, PW 5 Dr. Anil Kumar Arora, who examined the accused. PW 6 Dr. Seema Arora, who examined the prosecutrix, PW 7 Jagdish Singh, H.C., PW 8 Ram Prakash, Constable PW 9 Narendra Singh A.S.I. who investigated the case and PW 10 Shri Brijraj Singh, Station House Officer. The prosecution also exhibited some documents to prove its case. Thereafter. the trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he did not commit rape on Narbda. He was at his field and was cutting the crop at the time of incident and he has been falsely implicated by the brothers of Narbda. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. 4. In assailing the judgment of the learned trial court, Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, Amicus Curiae contended that from the evidence of the prosecutrix as regards commission of rape on her, if scrutinised in the light of medical evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant committed offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. He has further contended that the prosecution herself has contradicted on material aspects as would be evident from a bare perusal of the First Information Report, Ex.P 1 and her statement recorded during trial. He also submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR whereas the Police Station was hardly at a distance of 4-5 Kms., from the house of the prosecutrix, which throws serious doubt on the genesis of the prosecution story. In this background, the learned Amicus Curiae vehemently argued that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law in recording finding of guilt against the accused appellant and he deserves to be acquitted. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order and the record of the case. 7. While dealing with the cases of rape, it must be kept in mind that it is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. It must be remembered that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault, it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. 8. The law is well settled on the point that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice of the crime and there is no rule of law that testimony cannot be acted without corroboration on material particulars and her testimony has to be appreciated on the principles of probabilities, just on the testimony of any witness and further if the court find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. 9. In the case in hand, if the statement of the prosecutrix is scrutinised in the light of the above settled position of law, her statement, in my opinion, does not inspire confidence so as to hold the accused appellant guilty of the offence of rape. The prosecutrix has contradicted herself on material particulars, resulting into prosecution story being suspicious and untrustworthy. The prosecutrix has contradicted herself on material particulars, resulting into prosecution story being suspicious and untrustworthy. In the FIR, Ex.P. 1, the prosecutrix has stated that she left for her village in a truck, whereas, in her statement as during trial she has deposed that she travelled in a bus. The time of occurrence as has been written in the FIR is 4.00 PM, whereas, in her statement she has deposed that she reached at the place of occurrence at about 12.00 noon. As regards the presence of the accused, the FIR speaks that the accused all of a sudden appeared from a drain, whereas, in her so statement the prosecutrix has stated that accused came to her from the village side. 10. That apart, the prosecutrix in her statement has categorically stated that accused dragged her forcibly, lifted her and threw her behind the boundary wall of the height of about 5 feet. The site plan Ex.P. 6 mentions the height of wall as 3-4'. It also mentions that there exist bushes and tress on the other side of the boundary wall, where the alleged rape was committed. Therefore, in natural course of events as suggested and narrated by the prosecutrix herself, the injuries must have found on her body. The prosecutrix has categorically stated in her statement that she sustained injuries on her elbows and blood also oozed out. Her sister-in-law (bhabhi) has also stated that she found injuries on the body of prosecutrix. But surprisingly enough, the Medical Officer PW 6 Dr. Seema Arora did not find any injury on her buttocks, thigh etc., PW 6 Dr. Seema Arora has categorically stated that she did not find any injury on the buttocks, thighs and private parts of the prosecutrix. She has opined that there was no sign of recent forceful intercourse with the victim. Not only this, the prosecutrix has stated about herself to be virgin and it was for the first time that she was subjected to intercourse by the accused, whereas the Medical Officer has opined that she was habitual of sexual intercourse. Thus, the medical evidence also does not support the version of the prosecutrix. Not only this, the prosecutrix has stated about herself to be virgin and it was for the first time that she was subjected to intercourse by the accused, whereas the Medical Officer has opined that she was habitual of sexual intercourse. Thus, the medical evidence also does not support the version of the prosecutrix. Further, the Ghagra which she was wearing at the time of alleged rape and which was seized by the Investigating Officer was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, but the prosecution has not been able to produce the FSL report during trial of the case. 11. It has also not come on record whether the prosecutrix narrated the incident to any person immediately after the incident. However, it has come on record that for the first time she narrated the incident to her family members at village Mehrana, a place which is at a distance of about 4-5 kms. from the place of occurrence. The prosecution has also not examined any witness to whom she narrated the incident just after its occurrence. This behaviour of the prosecutrix appears to be unnatural and against human nature. 12. Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that this court is conscious that unmerited acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on the prowl for easy prey, more so when the victims of crime are helpless females and the courts have to display a greater sense of responsibility and to be more sensitive while dealing with charges of sexual assault on women. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value and there is no other evidence direct or circumstantial which could lend assurance to her testimony. Thus in my considered view, the trial court, solely on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix, has wrongly held that sexual assault amounting to rape was committed on the prosecutrix by the accused appellant. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellant by the trial court is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges under Sections 376 and 341 IPC. The accused is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed - Conviction set aside. *******