Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT, Bhagwan Das, the sole accused person in this case, has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment by the impugned judgment dated 24-8-99 passed in Special Case No. 106/99 by the Second Additional Special Judge, Balaghat. He has also been convicted under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. He has been found guilty for committing an offence of rape with the prosecutrix, Mamta Bai (P. W. 1), on 24-8-99 at about 12 oclock in her house. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-The prosecutrix, Mamta Bai (P. W. 1), is second wife of Johan Singh. From the first wife, Johan Singh has three issues and none from the prosecutrix. Since the prosecutrix was not keeping well for some days and her husband had left the house to work as Mason, she thought of seeing Dr. Katare of Mehgaon. On 24-8-99, while the prosecutrix was going on foot to meet the doctor, the appellant met her on way and offered her lift on his bicycle to which she agreed. Both of them went to the doctor who, after examining the prosecutrix, prescribed medicines to her. At about 12 oclock, the appellant brought the prosecutrix back to her house and made her comfortable by making her lie down. He, thereafter, bolted the door from inside and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her consent. Santra Bai (P. W. 4) is "bhanji" of the prosecutrix. She, while playing, heard the noise of prosecutrix coming from the house. She, therefore, went to see the prosecutrix but found the door of the house bolted from inside. She, however, managed to see the appellant and prosecutrix in a compromising position from the window. She immediately rushed to inform Gauri Bai (P. W. 2) and by the time they returned the appellant, on seeing them, ran away from the rear door of the house of prosecutrix. Later, in the evening, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her husband, Johan Singh, when he returned after the work. She immediately rushed to inform Gauri Bai (P. W. 2) and by the time they returned the appellant, on seeing them, ran away from the rear door of the house of prosecutrix. Later, in the evening, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her husband, Johan Singh, when he returned after the work. First Information Report was lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station, Malajkhand, District Balaghat, on the next day at 2:00 p. m. Her husband, Johan Singh, had accompanied her upto the police station. In the First Information Report, the name of Santra Bai (P. W. 4) was mentioned as an eye-witness of the incident. Santra Bai (P. W. 4) had also disclosed the incident to her parents. ( 3. ) DR. Smt. Pushplata Sambhere (P. W. 7) examined the prosecutrix on 25-8-99. Her medical report is Ex. P-7. According to the medical report, the prosecutrix was a full grown, well developed, lady and no marks of violence were found on any part of her body including her private part. According to the medical report, vagina of the prosecutrix admitted two fingers easily. There was also no sign of sexual intercourse as she was habitual to it and at the time of her examination, she was on menses. Dr. Smt. Pushplata Sambhere (P. W. 7) in her report did not mention that the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) was either unwell or was under some medication. In fact, it seems that the prosecutrix did not even complain to the doctor that she was not keeping well. Dr. Pushplata Sambhere (P. W. 7) also prepared a sealed packet of "sari" and Vaginal Smear Slide of the prosecutrix and handed over the same to the police for their chemical examination. There is, however, no report of Forensic Science Laboratory on record. ( 4. ) THE appellant, in his defence, pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court, relying upon the evidence of prosecutrix (P. W. 1) Gauri Bai (P. W. 2) and Santra Bai (P. W. 4), convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 6. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court, relying upon the evidence of prosecutrix (P. W. 1) Gauri Bai (P. W. 2) and Santra Bai (P. W. 4), convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 6. ) SHRI Mohammad Salim, learned Counsel for the appellant, has challenged the conviction on the ground that the Trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of prosecutrix as her evidence stands uncorroborated by the medical evidence (Ex. P-7 ). The learned Counsel further asserted that the appellant has been able to prove his defence in the Court and hence the Trial Court ought to have acquitted him. On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Dhande, Panel Lawyer, for the State argued that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the Trial Court as there is overwhelming evidence against him. ( 7. ) I have carefully gone through the evidence and material available on record and I am unable to agree with the Trial Court that the appellant committed an offence of rape on prosecutrix. ( 8. ) ADMITTEDLY, even according to the prosecutrix (P. W. 1), she accompanied the appellant on his bicycle to meet the doctor and thereafter both of them returned together at 12 oclock to her house. At that time, no one was in the house. The appellant, thereafter, bolted the door of the house from inside and no hue and cry was raised by her. Santra Bai (P. W. 4), while playing outside, heard the noise of prosecutrix and, therefore, she went to see her but found the door bolted from inside. On seeing from the window, both appellant and prosecutrix in a compromising position, she rushed to call Gauri Bai (P. W. 2) and the appellant, on seeing them, ran away from the rear door of the house. Santra Bai (P. W. 4), in her evidence, has nowhere stated that the prosecutrix disclosed to her, on opening the door, that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her, without her consent. Santra Bai (P. W. 4) has further deposed in her evidence that Gauri Bai (P. W. 2) came after her and by that time the appellant had run away. Santra Bai (P. W. 4) has further deposed in her evidence that Gauri Bai (P. W. 2) came after her and by that time the appellant had run away. Gauri Bai (P. W. 2) has deposed that she went to the house of prosecutrix, on being informed by Santra Bai (P. W. 4) about the incident, and when she entered the house she found the prosecutrix unconscious. According to her, she gave water to drink to the prosecutrix and, on her asking, the prosecutrix disclosed about the incident to her. Gauri Bai (P. W. 2), in her cross-examination when confronted with her police case diary statement, could not give any explanation as to why the said fact that the prosecutrix was unconscious and she gave her water to drink was not mentioned in it. As already stated above, the medical report of the prosecutrix does not corroborate her evidence at all. For the foregoing reason, I am of the firm view that the prosecutrix was a consenting party at the time when the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. It is unmistakably clear that the act of appellant with the prosecutrix was a consenting act and she was left with no option but to present it as a case of rape as she was caught unaware in a compromising position with the appellant by Santra Bai (P. W. 4), who was aged only 14 years, and because she had rushed to disclose the incident to other ladies of the locality, including her parents. Surprisingly, Johan Singh, husband of the prosecutrix (P. W. 1), has not come forward to support the prosecution case though it is said that he had accompanied the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) upto the police station at the time of making the First Information Report. ( 9. ) THE prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant that he committed an offence of rape on the prosecutrix in her house, without her consent. ( 10. ) THE appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Trial Court, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. He is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.