JUDGMENT 1. - This is state appeal directed against the order dated 25.5.1987 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali acquitting the accused - respondents of various charges under sections. 459, 366, 376, 325 & 323, Indian Penal Code 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the material on record. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution in support of its case. 3. The present proceedings was initiated on complaint made by Bhura Ram S/o Pukha Ram on 3.12.1973 before Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Desuri. This complaint was forwarded to SHO, Magartalab for investigation under sections. 156, Criminal Penal Code. on 3.5.1974. As such the accused came to be tried for offences charged against them. 4. In sum and substance, the chequered history of this case reveals that not only prosecutrix Mst. Chukali, PW-1 turned hostile, most of the witnesses produced by the prosecution did not support its case. Moreover, nothing could be elicited from them in their cross-examination that could support the prosecution story. Accused-Ram Niwas was charged for offence punishable under sections. 376, Indian Penal Code in addition to offences punishable under section. 459, 366, 325 & 323, IPC. In her statement recorded before the Court the prosecutrix Mst. Chukali, PW-1 categorically denied having ever been raped by the accused-Ramniwas. At the trial, she supported the defence version and denied the prosecution story of her abduction by the accused. At the request of the Public Prosecutor, she was declared hostile and examined accordingly. She categorically stated that she was abducted by 10-15 persons including Gorakhdan, Kailashdan etc. from her parental house and was recovered by her brother with police aid. She disclosed in her cross-examination that she was put up at the house of Gorakhdan for four months after her abduction. Gorakhdan and Chhatarpal Singh is one and same person but called by two names. Thereafter, her brother accused-Ghisiya moved an application before Addl. District Magistrate for search. A search warrant was issued by the A.D.M. and in pursuance of the search warrant she was recovered by the police. She denied having ever been molested or raped by the accused-Ram Niwas and further stated that the accused did not assault either Panaki or Teejon Bhamban. Besides, any medical evidence so far as alleged offence under section. A search warrant was issued by the A.D.M. and in pursuance of the search warrant she was recovered by the police. She denied having ever been molested or raped by the accused-Ram Niwas and further stated that the accused did not assault either Panaki or Teejon Bhamban. Besides, any medical evidence so far as alleged offence under section. 376, Indian Penal Code against Ram Niwas is concerned is completely lacking in this case. The prosecutrix herself stated in her examination-in-chief that she was not medi cally examined. On the record, I have come across an order dated 9.1.1974 of Addl. District Magistrate, Pali on proceedings under section. 100, Criminal Penal Code initiated by accused-respondent-Ghisiya who is real brother of the prosecutrix Mst. Chukali. In that proceedings, it has come on record that Mst. Chukali was recovered in pursuance of a search warrant issued on 30.10.1973 under section. 100, Cr.P.C. authorising the police to search the house of Chhatarpal Singh wherein Mst. Chukali was believed to be kept. She had stated therein that she was forcefully abducted by Gorakhdan, Kailashdan and Govind Singh and carried off in a tractor from Boosi to Raipuriya where she was kept under lock and all the three had outraged her modesty and kept threatening her and, therefore, she was ultimately recovered from the house of Chhatarpal Singh. They are not the accused in the instant case and the learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to convince this Court so as not to rely upon the veracity of this order dated 9.1.1974. Nothing has come on record to suggest an adverse inference against aforesaid proceedings under section. 100, Cr.P.C. 5. Among the witnesses, the prosecution examined PW-3 Mst. Teejon who alleged having been assaulted by accused-Ram Niwas. She stated in her examination-in-chief that the incident occurred at midnight and she went to Bhuria's house on hearing cries of Chukali. When she prevented the accused from carrying away Chukali Ramniwas struck her at elbow with a stick. In cross-examination she stated that her eye-sight is weak and she cannot even see clearly during day-time and house of Chukali is 7-8 houses removed that hers and is thus 80-90 paces away from her house. When she prevented the accused from carrying away Chukali Ramniwas struck her at elbow with a stick. In cross-examination she stated that her eye-sight is weak and she cannot even see clearly during day-time and house of Chukali is 7-8 houses removed that hers and is thus 80-90 paces away from her house. She, however, dithered in her statement and stated that on hearing the cries of Chukali she kept standing at her house and when she was hurt at the elbow she remained lying in the house. In her cross-examination, what was further elicited from her shatters the credibility of this witness. She stated that the night was dark and, therefore, she named accused-Ramniwas as assailant on the basis of shouts of the villagers. She also stated that she had not gone to the house of Chukali. She identified Bhuria as Ghisiya and Ghisiya as Bhuria. Her entire testimony appears to be mere tutorial and the trial Court rightly did not believe her evidence at the trial. In the cross- examination, the witness admitted presence of Chhatarpal Singh near the Court premises, however, she denied having been tutored by him. 6. On witness PW-4 Bhaga was examined by the prosecution who stated before the Court that at the time of incident he was the only man coming out and, therefore, did not go after the accused to chase them. PW-3 Teejon, in her doss-examination, stated that at that time many persons had collected near her house. PW-4 Bhaga also stated in the cross-examination that Chhatarpal Singh had come to Court with him and Teejon and before examination they were sitting together at the piao outside near the Court. It may be mentioned here that PW-3 Teejon, in her cross-examination, had denied having met Chhatarpal Singh before coming to Court for her evidence and had stated that Chhatarpal Singh might have come for his own work but she did not know. This Chhatarpal Singh who is also known and called as Gorakhdan is the person named by PW-1 Chukali in her statement before the Court who was one of her abductors and after abduction she was illegally and wrongfully confined in his house. She had stated that Chhatarpal Singh and Gorakhdan are names of one and the same person. As noted hereinabove, Mst. Chukali was recovered in pursuance of a search warrant issued on 30.10.1973 under section. She had stated that Chhatarpal Singh and Gorakhdan are names of one and the same person. As noted hereinabove, Mst. Chukali was recovered in pursuance of a search warrant issued on 30.10.1973 under section. 100, Criminal Penal Code authorising the police to search the house of Chhatarpal Singh wherein Mst. Chukali was believed to be kept. She had stated therein that she was forcefully abducted by Gorakhdan, Kailashdan and Govind Singh and carried off in a tractor from Boosi to Raipuriya where she was kept under lock and all the three had outraged her modesty and kept threatening her. 7. PW-5 Bhura Ram S/o Pukhaji is the complainant in the present proceedings and claimed to be husband of Mst. Chukali. He stated that in the night Nimbaram, Bhuriya, Ramniwas and Ghisiya came to his house and forcefully entered therein. Ramniwas caught hold of Chukali and entrusted her to Ghisiya. He then made shouts whereupon people gathered there. I had made a report to the police but the police did not take the report. Statement of this witness runs contrary to that of PW-1 Chukali and, therefore, he was not relied on by the trial Court and rightly so. 8. It is noteworthy here that the medical officer who had examined Mst. Teejon for her injury opined in his testimony that the injury could be caused by falling from the tractor. The doctor PW-8 Sohan Singh Charan stated before the Court that there was no contusion or abrasion on the skin at the place of fracture. The doctor stated that on violence there should be some bruise or abrasion on the skin unless there is any cover in between. 9. PW-9 Bhanwar Singh in his testimony disclosed that in the night Ramniwas, Nimbaram and Bhura alongwith some policemen had come to his farm. They were talking about recovery of a girl. They were talking about recovering the girl from Raipuriya. About a quarter to an hour thereafter they had again come and brought with them the girl Chukali. I refused to put my signature on the panchnama. 10. An appreciation of the entire evidence in the case unfolds the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution witnesses are highly tampered with and they are tutored witnesses. With the entire evidence besmerched with material contradictions, the trial Court could not have arrived at a different conclusion. I refused to put my signature on the panchnama. 10. An appreciation of the entire evidence in the case unfolds the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution witnesses are highly tampered with and they are tutored witnesses. With the entire evidence besmerched with material contradictions, the trial Court could not have arrived at a different conclusion. Having considered the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution completely failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. There is no merit in this appeal.The appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******