JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused-Jethia @ Jetha Ram against a judgment dated 11.11.1987 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. 2. According to the prosecution story, the oral FIR (Ex.P/8) was lodged by PW-3 Shimbhu Devi D/o Kana Ram on 14.3.1984 at 8.00 p.m. at P.S. Pilibanga. According to the FIR, she was working in her agricultural field on 13.3.1984 at 1.00 p.m. when the two accused persons Jethia and Devi Lal pounced upon her. Devi Lal caught hold of her and the appellant-Jethia performed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter both the accused persons took to their heels. The prosecutrix came to her house and narrated the story to her mother (PW-4) Rameshwari. A case u/s. 447 & 376/34 of the IPC was registered and challan was filed against both of them. Devi Lal was charged for the offence punishable u/ss. 447 & 376/34 of the IPC. Similarly, the appellant-Jethia was also charged for the offences punishable u/ss. 447 & 376/34 of the IPC. Both of them pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of the prosecution story. None was examined in defence. The learned Trial Court then heard the arguments and delivered judgment on11.11.1987. The co-accused-Devi Lal was acquitted of both the charges. The appellant was found guilty in respect of both the charges. For the offence punishable u/s. 447 of the IPC, the appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence punishable u/s. 376 of the IPC, he has been convicted and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years as well as a fine of Rs. 500/-. For non-payment of fine, he has been ordered to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court are unsustainable. The prosecutrix Shimbhu Devi has been declared hostile by the prosecution and her evidence falls much short of proving the guilt of the accused-appellant. 4. In the very beginning, she has made a mention that she does not. recognise either of the accused persons. She has further stated that she does not know as to who performed the "Khota Kam" upon her. 4. In the very beginning, she has made a mention that she does not. recognise either of the accused persons. She has further stated that she does not know as to who performed the "Khota Kam" upon her. After she was declared hostile, she admitted that the FIR (Ex.P/8) was lodged by her. She further admitted the suggestion that the appellant performed "Khota Kam" with her. During cross-examination, she has admitted that the faces of both the culprits were fully covered with cloth. Thereafter, she has deposed that initially the two persons gave her severe beating, as a result of which she became unconscious and the "Khota Kam" was performed with her when she was unconscious. 5. From the evidence of her mother Rameshwari (PW-4), it is more than evident that the culprits could not be identified at the time of the alleged crime. She has stated that her daughter Shimbhu Devi told her that the person who committed the offence had his face covered by a cloth. The witness has specifically stated that the name of the culprit was not disclosed to her by her daughter Shimbhu Devi. According to PW-4 Rameshwari it were Jagdish and Mansha who subsequently came to her and disclosed the name of the appellant. In these circumstances, I find that a finding of guilt could not be arrived at against the appellant. The deposition of PW-3 Shimbhu Devi is contrary to the allegations mentioned in the FIR lodged by her. She could not support the prosecution story and was declared a hostile witness. Thereafter, she affirmed the prosecution story when leading questions were put to her. Thereafter, during cross-examination by the counsel for the accused persons, she specifically admitted that the faces of the two culprits were fully covered with cloth. She further stated that she became unconscious on account of beating and the "Khota Kam" was performed while she was unconscious. PW-4 Rameshwari has specifically stated that Shimbhu Devi was not able to see the faces of the two culprits. Subsequently Jagdish and Mansha told her the name of the appellant. These Jagdish and Mansha have not been examined. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 11.11.1987 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of both the charges.Appeal allowed. *******