Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-8-2001, passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arrah, in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1999. The sole appellant Awadhesh Singh was con-victed for the offence under Sec. 376 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years under each of the aforesaid sections, the sentences directed to run concurrently. 2. The case originated on the written report of Ramji Pandey on the allegations that his daughter Chanda Kumari aged about 14 years (then) was chastised by her mother on 7-3-1999 due to negligence in doing domestic chores and since then his daughter was missing. The informant kept searching for his daughter and when he failed to trace her, he got an S.D. entry recorded regarding the missing of his daughter on 8-3-1999. Subsequently, he came to know that Awadhesh Singh had abducted his daughter and, therefore, he went to the police, station again and filed a written report, Ext. 1. It was further alleged in the aforesaid written report that the informants daughter was on talking terms with the appellant whose house was contiguous to the house of the informant. Awadhesh Singh, the appellant, was also absent from his house. In the aforesaid cir-cumstances, the informant suspected that his daughter was abducted by the appellant. 3. The accused pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. 4. The prosecution had examined in all twelve witnesses. P.W. 12 is the I.O. of the case. P.W. 11 is the doctor. P.W. 10 simply said that he had heard that Chanda Kumari was missing from her house. PWs. 9,8 and 7 all were declared hostile by the prosecution and their cross examination by the prosecution yielded no evidence for the prosecution. P.W. 6 had recorded the statement of the victim under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. P.W. 5 is the victim herself. P.W. 4 was hearsay witness about the tracelessness of the victim. P.W. 3 is father of the victim (informant). P.W. 2 is the mother of the victim and P.W. 1 is the brother. 5. PWs 1, 2, 3, and 5 are the only witnesses to support the alleged occurrence of the tracelessness of the victim from her house from 7-3-1999. P.W. 4 was hearsay witness about the tracelessness of the victim. P.W. 3 is father of the victim (informant). P.W. 2 is the mother of the victim and P.W. 1 is the brother. 5. PWs 1, 2, 3, and 5 are the only witnesses to support the alleged occurrence of the tracelessness of the victim from her house from 7-3-1999. As far as occurrence in particular is concerned, that is contained in the evidence of P.W. 5 herself and whatever was told by her to her brother and mother and father was repeated in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. So it is the evidence of P.W. 5 which has to be analysed in order to find out whether the accused-appellant had committed the alleged offence. The victim P.W. 5 stated on oath in Court that she was chastised by her mother when she had failed to cook family food. After 20 minutes, she went to the roof of her house where one Sabita Kumari, the sister of the appellant, told his brother to decamp in the company of the victim, Chanda Kumari. Five minutes there-after, the victim went out in the field for easing. The appellant went there and sprinkled dust on her eyes which made the victim giddy. She cried out but the accused threatened to shoot her. Thereafter the accused-appellant sealed her mouth with a napkin and carried her to a ditch where she was subjected to criminal assault. From there, she was carried to a hospital in Kori village and was left her there. One Yadavji asked her as to from where she was coming. She asked him to take her to Bajaria village at the house of his fua. Then this Yadavji asked his relation, Lalan Yadav, to take this girl to Kajaria village. This Lalan took her to village Kajaria where she was confined for two days. Thereafter Lalan took her to village Jahawanpur where she remained for two months. When the villagers Yogendra Singh, Ajay Singh, Keshav Singh came to her and told her that Awadhesh was in jail, so she should make a statement in Court in favour of Awadhesh Singh. Then she came to Ara Bus stand in the company of Yogendra, where she was left stranded. One lawyer met her at this place to whom she asked for succour. Then she came to Ara Bus stand in the company of Yogendra, where she was left stranded. One lawyer met her at this place to whom she asked for succour. This lawyer informed the brother-in-law of the girl and subse-quently she was rescued by her brother with the help of the police from the house of a relation of hers at village Tiwarichak. 6. Now the question is whether upon the above evidence of this witness, the case under Sec. 376, IPC is made out. Of course, she said that she was criminally assaulted by the appellant in the field, but the doctor P.W. 11 stated that on the basis of the objective findings after examination on her person, it was difficult to say whether rape was committed on Chanda Kumari or not. The doctor opined that as per the radiological test, the age of the victim was between 17-19 years. Her Valvas were healthy and hymen was found torn, Vagina admitted two fingers. The victim was examined by the doctor on 5-4-1999. According to her evidence, it appears that the doctors date of examination perhaps is a mistaken one because the victim gave her statement before the Magistrate under Sec. 164, Cr. PC on 6th May, 1999. What-ever may be the case, it is apparent that the victim was examined almost a month after the alleged occurrence of criminal assault on her, so there was no question of any objective trace of the offence upon her private parts. Admittedly the victim was recovered from the house of one of her relations at village Tiwarichak, who was perhaps the brother-in-law of the brother of the victim. Now the question is whether the story of alleged kidnapping of hers at the hands of the accused is to be relied upon. Other witness on the point of alleged offence of rape upon the victim are hearsay witnesses and so far the abduction and kidnapping is concerned, there is no other witness to corroborate this allegation. In such circumstances, the Court had to depend on the solitary testimony of the victim herself regarding her alleged kidnapping from one place to another and regarding the alleged offence of criminally assault upon her. The doctors evidence did not at all corroborate the evidence of the victim regarding the alleged criminal assault upon her. In such circumstances, the Court had to depend on the solitary testimony of the victim herself regarding her alleged kidnapping from one place to another and regarding the alleged offence of criminally assault upon her. The doctors evidence did not at all corroborate the evidence of the victim regarding the alleged criminal assault upon her. The evidence of the victims father at paragraph 7 is to the effect that her daughter was still a vergin and chaste. That means, he suggests by his statement that his daughter was not subjected to any kind of intercourse by any body. In such circumstances, the evidence on record was insufficient to sustain the order of conviction of the accusedappellant for the offence under Sec. 376, IPC. As far as the abduction or kidnapping at the hands of the accused is concerned that is based on the sole testimony of the victim herself. The victim girl was recovered from the house of her own relation at village Tiwarichak. It is also surprising as to how the victim girl went to Tiwarichak at the house of her relation and as helped by a lawyer whose name has not been disclosed in her evidence. The circumstances on the record, therefore, were not sufficient to link the accused-appellant with the alleged offence of kidnapping or abduction of the victim as well. In such circum-stances, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is not based on sufficient, unimpeachable and positive evidence. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.