JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---The appellant was tried for rape of the prosecutrix and for rash and negligent act resulting in her death under sections 376 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was later on also framed against the appellant for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined in all ten witnesses in support of the charges. The learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, vide judgment dated 19-5-1998 acquitted the appellant of the charges of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also for rash and negligent act under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, he convicted the appellant for the offence of rape and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, R.I. for three months. The benefit of set off under section 428 of Cri.P.C. was given to the appellant. The appellant has challenged the said conviction in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix had gone to the forest for fire wood. Some of her companions went ahead and she took lift in tractor driven by the appellant who took her to the jungle and raped her. The prosecution case, further, is that the appellant tried to crush the prosecutrix under the tractor and actually took the tractor over her. The prosecution case further is that the appellant left the prosecutrix at her residence. The prosecutrix made oral dying declaration to Geeta (P.W. 1) and Kamlabai (P.W. 2) that the appellant had committed rape on her. According to the prosecution case, after making the statement before the said witnesses, the prosecutrix became unconscious and later died. The husband of the prosecutrix namely Laxman (P.W. 8) also states that the prosecutrix had told him that the tractor driver raped her but he did not mention this fact in F.I.R. because he did not want to defame the prosecutrix. 3. The appellant denied to have raped her, but he stated that when he was driving the tractor the deceased gave a signal to him and sought lift and accordingly he asked her to sit in the loaded trolly. She sat down on the heap of Tur stem in the trolly from where she fell down after the tractor had moved. The appellant denied to have raped her, but he stated that when he was driving the tractor the deceased gave a signal to him and sought lift and accordingly he asked her to sit in the loaded trolly. She sat down on the heap of Tur stem in the trolly from where she fell down after the tractor had moved. He stopped the tractor, lifted her, put her in the trolly and reached her in her house. According to him, he was falsely implicated in the case of rape. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted before me that the medical evidence totally rules out the possibility of any rape alleged to have been committed by the appellant on the deceased and in the light of the medical evidence not much credence can be given to the oral dying declaration since the same is not supported by any independent evidence. He also stated that Lingaji (P.W. 6) and Karnu (P.W. 7) who had been examined by the prosecution had not given the name of the woman who was in the tractor and the husband of the prosecutrix has also not given the name of the tractor driver. He, therefore, contends that the evidence on record does not prove any offence and the appellant be acquitted. 5. Learned A.P.P. made attempt to support the conviction, but was not able to satisfy on the question of medical evidence which rules out the possibility of rape. According to him, there is no reason to disbelieve the oral dying declaration and the appeal be rejected. 6. The question to be examined is whether oral dying declaration in this case can be implicitly relied upon without any corroborative evidence on record. The appellant has been acquitted of the charge of murder as also rash and negligent act under sections 302 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. According to the medical evidence of Dr. Chintamani (P.W. 5), he found multiple abrasions over various parts of the body as under :- "i) Multiple contusion over chest, six about 6 cm. x 2 cm. right side below the breast area. Lateral aspect extending transversely. Multiple abrasions all along the contusion line. ii) Multiple abrasions over chest superficial. iii) Multiple abrasions with contusion over lateral aspect of left side of body extending from below axilla to illiacreast. x 2 cm. right side below the breast area. Lateral aspect extending transversely. Multiple abrasions all along the contusion line. ii) Multiple abrasions over chest superficial. iii) Multiple abrasions with contusion over lateral aspect of left side of body extending from below axilla to illiacreast. iv) Contused abrasions over right thigh upper 1/3 lateral aspect 6" x 4". Suspected type mark present. v) Contusion over right thigh x" x 2" mid 1/3 lateral aspect. I found internal injuries i.e. i) fractured ribs left side at lateral aspects No. 4 and 5. ii) Fractured ribs right third at nipple line. iii) Fractured ribs of right number 8, 9 and 10 at lateral aspect liver area. On opening the abdomen I found following injuries :- i) Peritoneum ruptured below liver free blood present in peritoneum cavity, undigested food material present in the stomach, small intestine empty, large intestine contains food, liver completely ruptured at right side and crushed. Left lobe of the liver was intact. Gall bladder ruptured. Spleen was ruptured. Urinary bladder crushed at right lateral aspect. In my opinion cause of her death, shock due to extensive internal haemorrhage due to severe crush injury to the vital organs. I issued P.M. examination report under my signature. A report now shown to me is same. It is at Exh. 21. Contents of it are correct. Injuries observed by me could be possible by running over of a tractor on body and also by dash, by vehicle such as tractor. Injuries found on genital organs are not possible during the course of resistance by a woman against the act of rape." Thus, according to Dr. Chintamani (P.W. 5), the cause of death is shock due to extensive internal haemorrhage due to severe crush injury to the vital organs and that the injuries were possible by running over of a tractor on the body and also by dash by vehicle such as tractor. Nevertheless, he categorically stated that injuries found on genital organs are not possible during the course of resistance by a woman against the act of rape. He, further, stated that the police had made some queries which were replied to by him vide letter (Exh. Nevertheless, he categorically stated that injuries found on genital organs are not possible during the course of resistance by a woman against the act of rape. He, further, stated that the police had made some queries which were replied to by him vide letter (Exh. 22) wherein he had stated that no opinion can be formed regarding rape, no semen and injuries were found on her private part and the blood which was coming through private part was due to rupture of urinary bladder. Thus, the evidence of Dr. Chintamani (P.W. 5) rules out the possibility of rape. Witness Lingaji (P.W. 6) and witness Karnu (P.W. 7) have spoken of a woman sitting in the tractor but they have not given the name of the said woman. Laxman (P.W. 8), husband of the prosecutrix, has stated that the deceased had told that the tractor driver raped her but he did not disclose this fact in the F.I.R. since he did not want his wife to be defamed. The other two witnesses examined by the prosecution on oral dying declaration are Geeta (P.W. 1) and Kamlabai (P.W. 2). Both of them have stated that when they enquired from the deceased she told that she was raped by the appellant. Both of them further stated after making the statement she became unconscious. These statements of Geeta (P.W. 1) and Kamlabai (P.W. 2) do not inspire confidence since in view of the extensive crush injuries on the person of the prosecutrix it is rather difficult to believe that she was still conscious and became unconscious only after making the said dying declaration as if she was waiting for dying declaration to be made before falling unconscious. Even otherwise oral dying declaration is a weak piece of evidence and until it inspires confidence or gets independent corroboration from any quarter, it is difficult to place reliance on such oral dying declaration. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to sustain conviction on the basis of evidence on record. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of rape against the appellant and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the said charge. The  appellant is accordingly acquitted of the said charge of rape under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is allowed. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of rape against the appellant and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the said charge. The  appellant is accordingly acquitted of the said charge of rape under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence under section 376 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur vide judgment dated 19-5-1998, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal, is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty in case he is not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. -----