JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by Bhanwra Ram Jat, Village Ranasar, P.S. Bhanipura, District Churu against the judgment dated 31.5.1993 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Churu whereby the accused-appellant was found guilty u/s. 354 of the IPC and was awarded a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- as fine. For non-payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month has been awarded. It is further ordered that after the amount of fine is realised Rs. 400/- may be paid to the prosecutrix PW-1 Smt. Imrati W/o Hanumanaram. 2. According to the prosecution story Smt. Imrati alongwith her husband Hanumanaram went to Police Station, Bhanipura on 18.8.1988 and lodged and oral FIR Ex.P/1. 3. According to the FIR the incident occurred on 17.8.1988 between 5.30-6.00 p.m. when she was returning from her agricultural field her house. According to the FIR the prosecutrix had gone to her agriculture field for the protection of the crops from stray animals and while she was there her husband PW-2 Hanumanaram and his (sic her) mother in-law PW-3 Janki Devi also reached. When she was crossing through another agricultural field belonging to Jora Ram the accused came rushing towards her and after getting hold of her she was thrown on the ground. Thereafter, the accused sat on her and attempted to commit rape upon her. She offered resistance and her blouse was torn during the incident. Thereafter the accused inserted her (sic his) hand inside her vagina and blood started oozing out. There after the accused again tried to commit rape. However, because of her resistance he could not succeed. Meanwhile hearing her cries her husband Hanumanaram, mother-in-law Janki Devi and an independent witness Bhera Ram (PW- 6) appeared on the scene. They shouted and dared the accused upon which the accused took to his heels. A case u/s. 376/511 of the IPC was registered and challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshar, from where the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge at Churu. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Public Prosecutor then opened his case and examined PW-1 Smt. Imrati PW-2 Hanumanaram, PW-3 Janki Devi, PW-4 Bhanwarlal Sharma, PW-5 Dr. S.K. Kaushik and PW-6 Bhera Ram. The statement of the accused was then recorded u/s.313 of the Cr.P.C. His contention was that the whole story was a fabrication. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Public Prosecutor then opened his case and examined PW-1 Smt. Imrati PW-2 Hanumanaram, PW-3 Janki Devi, PW-4 Bhanwarlal Sharma, PW-5 Dr. S.K. Kaushik and PW-6 Bhera Ram. The statement of the accused was then recorded u/s.313 of the Cr.P.C. His contention was that the whole story was a fabrication. He got recorded that actually the complainant side want and attempted to open a passage forcibly through his agricultural field and he received injuries from Hanumanaram and his wife Imrati and this case was falsely foisted upon him. No defence witness was examined. The learned trial Court then heard arguments and delivered the judgment on 31.5.1993. The appellant was acquitted of the charges u/s. 376/511 but was found guilty u/s. 354 of the IPC and was convicted in the aforesaid manner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have carefully examined the record of the trial Court. 6. It may be stated at the out-set that cross-cases were registered in respect of the incident and Hanumanaram and his wife Imrati were tried for offences punishable u/s. 447 & 323 of the IPC by the said trial Court. It is also not in dispute that Imrati Devi was found guilty u/s. 447 and Hanumanaram was found guilty u/s. 447 & 323 of the IPC. Both were admitted to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, they were ordered to deposit Rs. 400/- out of which Rs. 250/- were to be delivered to the injured (accused-Bhanwra Ram). 7. In this way there are two versions of the incident regarding which both the sides lodged their respective FIRs. According to the prosecution story while Smt. Imrati was going all alone the accused came running from his own field, to the field of Jora Ram and tried to rape St. Imrati there. The other version is to the effect that the fide in question belonged to the accused-Bhanwra Ram and Hanumanaram and Imrati were trying to force open at passage and when prevented both attacked Bhanwra Ram and caused injuries to him. 8. Imrati there. The other version is to the effect that the fide in question belonged to the accused-Bhanwra Ram and Hanumanaram and Imrati were trying to force open at passage and when prevented both attacked Bhanwra Ram and caused injuries to him. 8. When examined in the above mentioned perspective, I find that the case filed against the appellant-Bhanwra Ram does not stand the test on careful scrutiny and it appears that the investigating officer was hand-in-glove with the complainant side and challenged the appellant in a biased manner. 9. The presence of Hanumanaram and Imrati is not in dispute but it is highly suspect that Smt. Janki Devi was present at the spot at the given time. She is a Government Servant and is a teacher. According to the prosecution story she was in the agricultural field at 3.00-4.00 p.m. which is unusual. To over-come this problem Janki Devi came out with a preposition that the office hours were from 7.00 a.m. - 12.00 noon. This is unacceptable because the incident took place on 17.8.1988. No other proof is there to suggest that the office hours were limited from 7.00 a.m. - 12.00 noon. She, thus was a chance witness and being highly interested was a doubtful witness. According to the FIR, the accused was sitting on Smt. Imrati who was lying on the ground. When PW-3 Janki Devi was required to narrate the scene she stated that what she saw was limited to this that the accused was just holding the hand of Imrati. She does not say that Imrati was lying on the ground. 10. PW-6 Bhera Ram has been examined as an independent witness. His testimony supports the defence version and not the prosecution story. He simply says that there was a fight between the accused on the one side and Hanumanaram and his wife on the other side. He also states that the venue of the quarrel was the field which belonged to the accused. 11. Certain things which have been alleged and stated during evidence are highly suspect and not believable. PW-2 Hanumanaram in order to make the story believable has deposed that the underwear and the garment worn over it both were lying on the spot and the accused ran away wearing a Kurta only. 11. Certain things which have been alleged and stated during evidence are highly suspect and not believable. PW-2 Hanumanaram in order to make the story believable has deposed that the underwear and the garment worn over it both were lying on the spot and the accused ran away wearing a Kurta only. Naturally if that was the situation then the underwear and the other garment which were allegedly lying on the spot should have been recovered by the investigating officer. However, they were not recovered and nobody has explained as to what happened to them. 12. Strees has been given on the allegation that the blouse of Smt. Imrati was torn completely. If that would have been the case it was natural that the same should be recovered as a piece of evidence. neither any blouse was recovered nor it has been tendered in his evidence. 13. Similarly, it has come in evidence that there was oozing out of blood from the vagina of the prosecutrix and her `ghagra' was blood stained. Strangely enough no such `ghagra' has been recovered and produced in evidence. 14. Dr. S.K. Kaushik has been examined in support of prosecution story and he in his examination-in-chief clearly stated that there were no injuries to the vagina or the adjoining area. This establishes the falsity of statements made on oath by Imrati and her husband. 15. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. Incident occurred on 17.8.1988 between 5.00-6.00 p.m. In view of such serious incident it was natural that the concerned party should reach the police station without any loss of time. However, the FIR was lodged almost 26 hours after the incident. No explanation, whatsoever, has been provided for the inordinate delay. Further it appears that this FIR Ex.P/1 is antedated. An FIR if lodged in the morning of 18.8.1988 was bound to reach the concerned Magistrate the same day. However, it bears a note that it reached the Magistrate on 19.8.1988 at 12.00 noon. PW-1 Imrati has admitted that apart from PW-6 Bhera Ram has corroborated the defence version and Badru has been left out the investigating officer because his name does not find place in the calendar of witnesses. 16. As pointed out earlier the prosecution story is to the effect that the incident occurred in the field belonging to Jora Ram. Jora Ram has not been examined. 16. As pointed out earlier the prosecution story is to the effect that the incident occurred in the field belonging to Jora Ram. Jora Ram has not been examined. The defence version has been to the effect that it occured inside the field of the accused-appellant as the complainant side was forcing a way through the field belonging to the accused. In this case the site map Ex.P/2 was prepared wherein the field which was the scene of occurrence is shown as belonging to Jora Ram S/o Pooran Ram. The Investigating Officer PW-4 Bhanwarlal Sharma has admitted that the cross case which was instituted by the accused was also investigated by him and the place of occurrence was recorded in the site map Ex.D/3. I find that the site. map of this case Ex.P/2 and the site map of the cross-case Ex.D/3 are exactly the same, with only one difference. The field where incident admittedly took place is shown as belonging to Jora ram in the site map Ex.P/2 but the same field has been shown belonging to the accused-Bhanwra Ram in Ex.D/3. The markings show a passage going through this field which according to the appellant was the cause of dispute. Preparation of the site map Ex.P/2 and Ex.D/3 by the investigating officer Bhanwarlal Sharma, in such a manner, leanes one in little doubt that the investigating officer was wholly dishonest in recording the realities on the ground. Smt. Imrati in her statement has categorically stated that while she was crossing through the field of Jora Ram, the accused was standing in his own field from where he entered the field of Jora Ram and got hold of her. Needless to say that in such an eventuality it was natural to show the field which belonged to the accused and where he was standing prior to entering the field in which the incident took palce. However, the map Ex.P/2 does not show any field belonging to the appellant.In view of what has been stated above I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are not sustainable and this appeal deserves to be allowed.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge u/s. 354 of the IPC. The amount of fine if deposited by him shall be refunded to him.Appeal allowed. *******