Judgment O. P. BISHNOI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused Kana Ram against the judgment dated 16/8/2001 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur, whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I. P. C. and was awarded a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. For nonpayment of fine further simple imprisonment for 6 months has been awarded. ( 2 ) THE incident of rape allegedly took place on 23/11/1999 at about 4-4. 30 p. m. in Village Bhavi under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bilara. Next day on 24/11/1999 the written FIR Ex.- P/1 was allegedly lodged by Smt. Sua W/o Harji Ram at 1. 00 p. m. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the FIR Smt. Sua was working in the field of Gokul Ram and the accused appeared there and tried to start conversation with her. Smt. Sua suspected mala fides on the part of the accused and proceeded for the village. The accused allegedly followed her and in the field of one Omprakash (PW/3) pounced upon her and effected forcible sexual intercourse. She raised cries, as a result of which, PW/2 Narayan Ram was attracted. Seeing Narayan Ram approaching the accused took to his heels. The husband of the prosecutrix Harji Ram (PW 1) alongwith Omprakash also appeared on the scene. Smt. Sua narrated the incident to her husband and consequently, the FIR was lodged. Regarding the delay, explanation was offered in the FIR, according to which, due to threat issued by the accused, the FIR was lodged with the delay. A case under Sections 341, 323 and 376 of the I. P. C. was registered and after the investigation was over, challan against the accused was filed in respect of the said offences. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 376 of the I. P. C. He pleaded not guilty. PW/1 Harji Ram, PW/2 Narayan Ram, PW/3 Omprakash, PW/4 Ganpat Ram, PW/5 Babulal, PW/6 Mangla Ram, PW/7 Dr. Bheem Dan Detha, PW/8 Bhakhar Ram, PW/9 Nathuram, PW/10 Smt. Sua and PW/11 Rajendra Prasad were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. DW/1 Vishan Singh, DW/2 Heera Lal, DW/3 Dalla Ram, DW/4 Khetaram, DW/5 Jagdish and DW/6 Hanumanram were examined in defence. Bheem Dan Detha, PW/8 Bhakhar Ram, PW/9 Nathuram, PW/10 Smt. Sua and PW/11 Rajendra Prasad were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. DW/1 Vishan Singh, DW/2 Heera Lal, DW/3 Dalla Ram, DW/4 Khetaram, DW/5 Jagdish and DW/6 Hanumanram were examined in defence. The defence contention was to the effect that there was a dispute regarding some passage and Omprakash instructed Harjiram (husband of the prosecutrix) to block the passage and consequently, there was a quarrel and on account of this enmity, this false case was foisted upon the accused. DW/1 Vishan Singh has deposed to the effect that on 23/11/1999 the accused was working with him since 8. 00 a. m. in the morning till 7. 00 p. m. in the evening and thus, could not be present at the alleged place of occurrence. DW/2 Heeralal has deposed to the effect that on the day of occurrence, the prosecutrix alongwith two other women were working till 6. 00 p. m. in the fields and after 6. 00 p. m. , they started for the village. DW/3 Dalla Ram, DW/4 Khetaram, DW/5 Jagdish and DW/6 Hanuman Ram have all deposed that there was a quarrel in respect of a passage between the accused and Harjiram. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned PP for the State I feel it difficult to sustain the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Even if the testimony of the defence witnesses is ignored the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to establish that the prosecutrix was raped by the accused. The defence version is to the effect that the FIR actually was drafted by Narayan Singh, Advocate of Bilara who dictated it to Nema Ram, Constable and the FIR Ex. P/i was scribed by Nema Ram, who was a brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. This specific suggestion was put to Harji as well as to Smt. Sua but both denied the suggestion. However, none could tell the name of the person from whom they got the FIR scribed. They could not answer the questions in this respect and could not tell the approximate age or the appearance of the person, who scribed the FIR. According to PW/1 Harji Ram, the FIR was scribed on the day of the incident i. e. , on 23/11/1999. They could not answer the questions in this respect and could not tell the approximate age or the appearance of the person, who scribed the FIR. According to PW/1 Harji Ram, the FIR was scribed on the day of the incident i. e. , on 23/11/1999. However, there is a mention in the FIR Ex. P/i wherein it is specifically stated that the incident took place Yesterday. Regarding the delay Harji Rams testimony is selfcontradictory. Initially, he states that due to the threat issued to the prosecutrix, he could not dare to go to the police station on 23/11/1999. Subsequently, he stated that by the time the FIR was scribed, it was darkness on account of which he was prevented from going to the police station. The police station, according to the investigating officer, Rajendra Prasad (PW/11) was just 12 km. away from the place of occurrence and the delay of more than 20 hours has not been explained properly. Harji Ram has admitted that he himself received no threat from the accused. According to Harji Ram, Smt, Sua narrated him the alleged threat from the accused. Contrary to this, the investigating officer, Rajendra Singh has specifically stated that as per his investigation, the threat was issued by the accused to Harji Ram himself later in the village. Smt. Sua, in her testimony, does not say that any such threat was issued or the threat was the reason of delay in lodging the FIR. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story PW/3 Narayan Ram was an eye-witness, who reached the spot, while the sexual act was in progress and by seeing him coming the accused left the prosecutrix and ran away. Smt. Sua in her testimony has stated that this Narayan Ram witnessed the incident of rape. Further the prosecution story is that Harji Ram and Omprakash also reached the spot, hearing the cries of the prosecutrix and they saw the accused running away. However, neither Narayan Ram nor Omprakash has corroborated the prosecution story and they have denied that any such incident was seen by them or any such story came to their notice. Both have been declared hostile witnesses. In this way, both the independent witnesses, who were examined to corroborate the allegations of the FIR have denied the story and in these circumstances the prosecution case becomes highly suspect. Both have been declared hostile witnesses. In this way, both the independent witnesses, who were examined to corroborate the allegations of the FIR have denied the story and in these circumstances the prosecution case becomes highly suspect. ( 6 ) REGARDING the place of occurrence, there are serious contradictions. As per the FIR, the incident occurred in the field of Omprakash. Harji Ram, in his statement Ex. P/15 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. has stated that the incident occurred in the field of Mohanji. However, during his testimony, in the court he has contradicted the statement Ex. P/15 and has denied that the incident took place in Mohanjis field. According to the FIR Ex. P/i Smt. Sua was working in the field of Gokul Ram, where the accused initially approached her. However, during her testimony in the court on 18/12/2000, she came out with the story that she was working in the field of Om Prakash when the accused came. Next day on 19/12/2000, she changed and stated that she was working in the field of Gokul Ram, and she denied that she was working in the field of Omprakash on 18/12/2000. She deposed that Narayan Ram was an eye-witness of the incident. However, on 19/12/2000 she denied that Narayan Ram witnessed the incident. According to the prosecution story Omprakash accompanied Harji Ram and both of them reached the spot after hearing the cries of the prosecutrix. However, Smt. Sua, in her statement Ex. D/3 recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. does not make a mention that Omprakash came with her husband. She has deposed that Narayan Ram and her husband appeared on the scene. ( 7 ) PW/1 Harji Ram, in his cross-examination, has specifically stated that in the morning on 24/11/1999, the police arrived at the scene of occurrence. This is very significant, because according to the prosecution story, the FIR was lodged on 24/11/1999 after 1. 00 p. m. It creates a serious doubt in respect of the prosecution case that the police investigated the case after lodging of the FIR Ex. P/i on 24/11/1999 after 1. 00 p. m. From the defence side, it is argued that no FIR was lodged on 24/11/1999. According to defence arguments, the FIR was actually lodged on 25/11/1999 but was antedated by the police. P/i on 24/11/1999 after 1. 00 p. m. From the defence side, it is argued that no FIR was lodged on 24/11/1999. According to defence arguments, the FIR was actually lodged on 25/11/1999 but was antedated by the police. The investigating officer Rajendra Singh was asked to explain as to how the formal FIR Ex. P/14 did not reach the Magistrate at Bilara on 24/11/1999. Rajendra Singh specifically stated that Ex. P/14 bears dispatch number and date 24/11/1999 but he could not explain as to how, the FIR did not reach the Magistrate on 24/11/1999, who was barely 5 minutes walk away from the police station. I have gone through the testimony of Harji Ram as well as Smt. Sua and their testimony does not inspire confidence. The learned PP has tried to say that various abrasions on the person of the prosecutrix, were recorded by PW. 7 Dr. Bheemdan and from the testimony of Dr. Bheemdan, the prosecution story finds the necessary corroboration. I find that simply on the basis of the alleged abrasions, no inference can be drawn against the accused. The investigating officer Rajendra Singh has admitted that possibly the injuries found on the person of Smt. Sua could be caused while moving in a cotton field. According to the prosecutrix the incident took place in an area which has sand dunes. However, according to the investigating officer Rajendra Singh, there were no footprints of any person at the alleged place of occurrence as it was a hard surface. ( 8 ) IN this way, it is clear that there are serious contradiction in respect of the alleged place of occurrence and in respect of the incident itself. The persons who were examined to provide independent corroboration have denied the prosecution story. The testimony of husband and wife is not of sterling worth. They have given evasive and unsatisfactory replies to the questions which were put to them. ( 9 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 16/8/2001 is setaside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. Appeal allowed.