Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellants along with Sk. Sabral Mian were tried for offences punishable under Sections 366. 342. 368 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial Court finding no good evidence against Sk. Sabral Mian, while acquitted him of the charges under Sec. 368 of the Indian Penal Code finding the appellants guilty under Sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appellants were found guilty also under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They also suffered conviction under Sec. 342 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths with a direction that all the sentences, shall run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix are that on 13th November, 1983 Bulanti Devi (PW 1) went to village Tilathi from her parental house in the company of wife of one Deonarain Singh of village Jhakhargarh to secure money and during her retreat to village Jhakhargarh, she was allegedly intercepted by four Muslim women near Rajwara village, who took her to the house of one Mehdi Mukhiya where 5 or 6 persons having emerged from the house, dragged her to a room and confined her therein. She claimed to have identified the appellants amongst them. It was alleged that during her confinement in the room of Mehdi Mukhiya, Sheikh Gogla (Ghughala) committed rape on her. In the following morning, it was alleged that the appellants and three unidentified persons took her to Chhatarpur on a rickshaw and from there she was taken to Madhepura by bus, and in the house of one Muslim lawyer she was kept in the night and in the following morning the said Muslim lawyer secured her thumb impression on a plain paper. Again on the following day, it was alleged by her that those who brought her to the lawyer, took her to Pratapganj on a bus and from there she went to Narahia Chhatarpur on foot where she was kept in a house of one Sabral Mian, There too she alleged to have been confined for three days where also Sheikh Gogla committed rape on her. It was only after arI1Val of Ramjee and Yagu Singh that she was rescued from the house arid with these narrations, fardbeyan of Bulanti Devi was recorded by Sri V.N. Pandey, SubInspector of Police on 20th November, 1983 at village Jhakhargarh which forms basis of the first information report drawn up at Chhatarpur Police Station, The investigation commenced 2nd during investigation, the police recorded statement of witnesses, got the prosecutrix clinically examined by a doctor and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the Court. The appellants along with Sabral Mian on being committed to the Court of Sessions were eventually-put on trial. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses including prosecutrix, doctor. Ramjee Singh, Fagu Singh and one formal witness. There was nothing material in the evidence of PW 5, that did not require consideration. 3. Coming to the evidence of the prosecutrix, she was reiterating her early version with some variations, in the Court about she having been dragged to the house of Mehdi Mukhiya on way to her house while coming from Tilathi where she was taken by Muslim females and was subjected to rape by both Gogla and Rasnu Mian. The narration made by her in Court about she having been taken to Chhatarpur and from there to Madhepura where she was allegedly confined in, the house of the Muslim lawyer was also reiteration of her early version. Similarly, her evidence about she having been taken to Narahiya Chhatarpur and her confinement in the house of one Sabral Mian where too she was subjected to sexual assault by the appellants are more or less in similar terms as that of her fardbeyan, which was recorded by the police at her village. Ramjee Singh (PW 2) and Fagu Singh (PW 3) did not lend assurance to the prosecution allegation and turned volte face to the State. Dr. Maya Pandey (PW 4) recorded a positive finding that though prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse, in the vaginal swab, no spermatozoa was noticed. The doctor, however, failed to record any positive finding about commission of sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution to lend assurance to the prosecution allegation. 4. The doctor, however, failed to record any positive finding about commission of sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution to lend assurance to the prosecution allegation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants while assailing the finding recorded by the trial Court and also credibility of the witnesses would urge that though prosecutrix was shown to have left her house as early as on 13th November, 1983 it was not before the lapse of about seven days when information was lodged with the police and that too on return of the prosecutrix to her house and even though female members were available in the house, no one took recourse to the public authority for about seven days for which no explanation was offered by the State. The contentions were raised that if early version of Bulanti Devi which she rendered before the Police was accepted to be true on its face value, that would unerringly suggest that the prosecutrix left house long with the wife of Deonarain Singh but that is not the prosecution case. If the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was taken into consideration, she would allege therein to have left her house in the company of her mother and sister. Learned counsel would urge that nowhere in early version which she rendered before the police, she would allege about the sexual assault made by Hasnu Mian but in her evidence which she rendered before the Court also implicated Hasnu Mian about having committed sexual assault at both places where she was confined and the last argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants was that the evidence of the prosecutrix, in view of her evidence having suffered major inconsistency, must be looked with suspicion and to crown all, it is urged that neither those who are shown to have rescued the prosecutrix from the house of Sabral Mian had lent assurance to the version of the prosecutrix, nor those who are shown to have gone to village Tilathi along with the prosecutrix were examined by the prosecution and lastly it is reiterated that there is no positive finding recorded by the doctor about the sexual assault upon the prosecutrix. 5. 5. Reliance was placed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in Ram Murti V/s. State of Haryana in which observations were made by the Hon ble Court that where the prosecutrix alleges that she was compelled, threatened or otherwise induced to go with the accused who was alleged to have raped her without her consent, her statement in order to base conviction of accused upon, must be corroborated in some material particulars from independent source. Learned counsel for the State countered the argument placed on behalf of the appellants and would urge that time without number observations have been made by the Apex Court of the land that even solitary version of the prosecutrix did not require corroboration. 6. Regard being had to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing far the appellants one cannot help feeling that though the prosecutrix left her house an 13th November, 1983, it was not before lapses of about seven days when her fardbeyan was recorded by the police only after she returned to the house and that too without explanation far belated prosecution of the appellants. That apart, though in her early version which she rendered before the police only Goghla was saddled with allegation of committing sexual assault an her in her evidence which she rendered before the Court even complicity of Hasnu Mian was sought to be introduced about he too having committed sexual assault an her. Likewise, though she was stating before the Court about commission of rape on her by Hasnu Mian at Narahiya Chhatarpur when she allegedly remained confined in a house of Sabral Mian such narration of events were conspicuously wanting in her early version. There is another infirmity which cannot remained unnoticed. Though she was taken to the house of a Muslim lawyer by the appellants and three unidentified persons such allegations were transpiring in her evidence only against the appellants though it was of no much significance. Though in her early version she alleged to remain confined far three days in the house of Sabral Mian, if her evidence before the Court was taken to be true. She was confined there only far one day. Though in her early version she alleged to remain confined far three days in the house of Sabral Mian, if her evidence before the Court was taken to be true. She was confined there only far one day. It is alleged that she was removed from place to place and that too in public places as it would appear from her evidence that while coming from Tilathia, she was taken to the house of Mehdi Mukhiya and from there she was taken to Chhatarpur on rickshaw and subsequent to that she boarded a Bus and went to Madhepura where she was confined in a house of Muslim lawyer and that is not end of the story, as she would allege that from Madhepura she was taken to Pratapganj an a jeep on which some passengers were available and from there she went to Narahiya Chhatarpur on foot. Though she had all occasions to narrate her woes and-raise alarms while passing through public places like bus stand there was no evidence that she ever took pains to express her woes to those, who were available there though she would allege in her evidence that at same places she could not dare on being threatened by the appellants and others. According (sic) she was residing with her paramour since last five or six years and in the backdrop of such assertion made by her, it is sought to be urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecutrix appears to be lady of easy virtue who was changing her beds and lastly as has been urged at Bar, those who could have been the best and competent witnesses did not lend assurance to the prosecution allegation. as neither Ramjee Singh nor Fagu Singh, who were suggested to have rescued the prosecutrix from the house of Sabral Mian, would state in positive terms about her confinement and rescue from house of Sabra Mian where she alleges to have been raped by the appellants. That apart, even the family members who had been shown in her early version to be in the company of the prosecutrix while going to village Tilathi were not examined. Except solitary statement of Bulanti Devi there was no evidence on the paint of her abduction of other witness and hence that statement remains uncorroborated. That apart, even the family members who had been shown in her early version to be in the company of the prosecutrix while going to village Tilathi were not examined. Except solitary statement of Bulanti Devi there was no evidence on the paint of her abduction of other witness and hence that statement remains uncorroborated. True it is that even the solitary testimony of the prosecutrixmay be taken into consideration far recording conviction against the rapist and though it is not the rule of the law but rule of prudence, yet in such circumstances, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrixmust be free from blemishes and I am constrained to hold that her evidence cannot be tested from that angle, as serious infirmity makes her case suspect. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I lam constrained to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to place clinching evidence on the record to hold the appellants guilty and as such conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot sustained. The finding of conviction and sentence as such is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds are discharged. The appeal thus succeeds.