Judgment O. P. BISHNOI, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been filed by the six accused persons against a judgment dated 18/11/2000 whereby all have been found guilty for the offences punishable u/ss. 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the IPC. S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 765/2000 has been filed by Roshan Khan, Yakub Khan, Kadar Khan and Safi Mohd. S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 743/2000 has been filed by Akbar and Jangsher. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story PW-1 Ruliram on 28. 4. 1999 at 6. 00 a. m. lodged a typed FIR Ex. P/1 at police station Bhadra, Distt. Sriganganagar. According to the FIR there was the marriage of the daughter of his brother Gyan Singh and in this connection a feast was arranged by him on 27/4/1999 and his 15-16 years old daughter Lali, who was slightly weak minded, disappeared. When she did not return for considerable time he and other persons proceeded to search her. At about 9. 00 p. m. a milkman informed him that he had seen six boys taking away one girl towards Kalyan Bhoomi. However, till 1. 00 a. m. the search remained futile. According to Ex. P/1 at about 1. 00 a. m. when Ruliram and his brother Gyan Singh were on their scooter, five boys were noticed in the light of the scooter near the office of Sheep and Wool Department. All the five, seeing the light of the scooter, took to their heels. Further, it was stated that inside the room they found the appellant Akbar having sexual intercourse with Lali who was shouting. According to the FIR, the other appellants were recognized in the light of the scooter and further the appellant Akbar informed them that they all had performed sexual intercourse with Lali. According to the FIR, the appellant Akbar was produced at the police station when the FIR Ex. P/1 was produced. A case u/ss. 147 and 376 of the IPC was registered. Ultimately, a challan was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra for the offence punishable u/s. 376/34 of the IPC and the trial was conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. All the six appellants were charged for the offences punishable u/ss. 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the IPC. All of them pleaded not guilty. Ultimately, a challan was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra for the offence punishable u/s. 376/34 of the IPC and the trial was conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. All the six appellants were charged for the offences punishable u/ss. 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the IPC. All of them pleaded not guilty. ( 3 ) PW-1 Ruliram, PW-2 Smt. Lali, PW-3 Gopal, PW-4 Subhash, PW-5 Phoolaram, PW-6 Jailal, PW-7 Dr. Ramlal, PW-8 Shishram and PW-9 Abdul Kayum were examined by the prosecution. None was examined in defence. The appellants in their statements recorded u/s. 313 of the Cr. P. C. denied that they were involved in any such incident. They further stated that neither they were known to the prosecutrix nor the prosecutrix was known to them. The learned trial Judge thereafter heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 18. 11. 2000. For the offence punishable u/s. 366 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and additional rigorous imprisonment for one month on account of non-payment of fine has been awarded to all the six appellants. For the offence punishable u/s. 376 (2) (g) of the IPC rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded. On account of non-payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for two months has been awarded. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court against the appellants are unsustainable and both the appeals deserve to be allowed. It may be stated at the very outset that the parties are residents of Bhadra and the incident was discovered at about 1. 00 a. m. (after midnight ). However, according to the prosecution story they went to the police station at 6. 00 a. m. There is no good reason to show as to why they did not proceed to the police station soon after the discovery of the incident. Moreover, it is highly suspect that the report Ex. P/1 was lodged actually at 6. 00 a. m. According to the FIR the accused Akbar Khan was produced at the police station at 6. 00 a. m. when the report Ex. P/1 was produced. Since the case was registered u/ss. Moreover, it is highly suspect that the report Ex. P/1 was lodged actually at 6. 00 a. m. According to the FIR the accused Akbar Khan was produced at the police station at 6. 00 a. m. when the report Ex. P/1 was produced. Since the case was registered u/ss. 147 and 376 of the IPC, it was natural that the accused was to be arrested for the said offence then and there. Strangely enough, the arrest memo Ex. P/33 of the accused Akbar Khan discloses that he was arrested at 11. 15 a. m. on 28. 4. 1999. This goes to show that possibly the FIR was not lodged in the morning at 6. 00 a. m. but was lodged at about 11. 00 a. m. and has been ante-timed. During cross-examination of PW-1 Ruliram. it has come that he went to the Court premises where he got the FIR Ex. P/1 typed from the typist. It is natural that the typist usually is available in the Court premises during the office hours and it is not conceivable that the typist was available to type the FIR Ex. P/1 even before sunrise. According to the statement Ex. D/1 of Smt. Lali recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr. P. C. , she has stated that after she was taken away by the appellants, all the six forcibly performed sexual intercourse with her in an agricultural field. Thereafter, she has stated that subsequently she was taken to another field in a hut and there also all the six appellants sexually assaulted her. Thereafter, she has stated that she was taken to the Office of Sheep and Wool Department and again she was raped by all the six appellants. In this way, sexual intercourse for 18 times was allegedly performed by the appellants. In this connection it is strange that the FIR Ex. P/1 does not disclose that Smt. Lali was sexually assaulted by the six appellants at three different destinations again and again. According to the FIR Ex. P/1 the accused-Akbar was caught red handed while he was performing sexual intercourse with Smt. Lali. Beyond that, Ex. P/1 simply states that Akbar Khan made an extrajudicial confession to the effect that other five appellants also had performed sexual intercourse with Smt. Lali. ( 5 ) SMT. Lali in her statement Ex. D/1 recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr. P/1 the accused-Akbar was caught red handed while he was performing sexual intercourse with Smt. Lali. Beyond that, Ex. P/1 simply states that Akbar Khan made an extrajudicial confession to the effect that other five appellants also had performed sexual intercourse with Smt. Lali. ( 5 ) SMT. Lali in her statement Ex. D/1 recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr. P. C. has named all the six appellants as if they were previously known to her. However, during her deposition in the Court during cross- examination initially she admitted that the appellants Roshan Khan, Safi Mohd. and Yakub were not known to her previously. Subsequently, she stated that the appellants Jangsher and Kadar Khan were also not known to her previously. Ultimately she admitted that even the appellant Akbar was not previously known to her. In this way she deposed in the Court that none of the appellants was previously known to her. When confronted with Ex. D/1 she stated that she was able to disclose their names during the recording of Ex. D/l because the accused persons were referring to each other by their respective names. Needless to say that the deposition of Smt. Lali is highly unsatisfactory. In the Court, she could not identify the appellants properly. Regarding Kadar Khan she identify him as Roshan Khan. Similarly, when she was asked about Yakub she stated that he was Roshan Khan. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to Ex. D/l Smt. Lali had gone from her house to invite certain guests for the feast which was arranged at her house, and during this period the accused persons told her that she was being searched by one of her uncles and ultimately all the six took her to the said places of occurrence. Strangely enough, the FIR Ex. P/l does not say that Smt. Lali had gone or was sent to invite any guests. According to the FIR Ex. P/l Smt. Lali was not a normal person and was actually dim witted. It is strange that if some guests were to be a invited, why a male person or some person of sound mind was not entrusted with the job. ( 7 ) DURING investigation, the three places where allegedly the prosecutrix was raped were visited by the Investi-gating Officer and site plans Ex. P19, Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/11 were prepared. It is strange that if some guests were to be a invited, why a male person or some person of sound mind was not entrusted with the job. ( 7 ) DURING investigation, the three places where allegedly the prosecutrix was raped were visited by the Investi-gating Officer and site plans Ex. P19, Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/11 were prepared. According to them initially she was raped in the field belonging to Girdhari under a Sheesham Tree. Thereafter, according to Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/10a she was taken to the agricultural field belonging to the appellant Akbar Khan where there was a hut and inside the hut she was raped by the six appellants. Thereafter according to Ex. P/11 she was raped outside the room belonging to Sheep and Wool Department under Kikar trees. Smt. Lali in her deposition has stated that she was made to fall under a tree and there she was raped one by one by all the six appellants. Thereafter, according to Smt. Lali, she was taken to a hut and outside the hut she was raped by all the six appellants. Thereafter, according to the prosecutrix, her father and uncle entered the office of the Sheep and Wool Department and caught the appellant Akbar performing sexual intercourse with her inside the room. When she was confronted during cross-examination with Ex. P/11 and told that according to Ex. P/11 the sexual intercourse was performed outside the office of the sheep and Wool Department in answer to this query, she stated that she was raped by the appellants inside the office of the Sheep and Wool Department and was also raped outside the room as well. In this way, according to Smt. Lali sexual intercourse with her was performed by six robust persons more than 18 times. She stated that on account of this, there was a swelling on her vagina and the same was inspected by the Doctor who examined her. Strangely enough PW-7 Dr. Ramlal does not corroborate the prosecution story in this respect. Dr. Ramlal has stated that there was absolutely no injury of any nature on the breast or private parts of the prosecutrix and neither there was any evidence of semen or matting of pubic hair. Dr. Ramlal has clarified that on pressing the public area Lali was not experiencing any sort of pain. Dr. Ramlal has stated that there was absolutely no injury of any nature on the breast or private parts of the prosecutrix and neither there was any evidence of semen or matting of pubic hair. Dr. Ramlal has clarified that on pressing the public area Lali was not experiencing any sort of pain. During cross-examination of Doctor has specifically stated that there was no evidence to suggest that sexual intercourse by six persons had been performed on Smt. Lali. Smt. Lali wants to believe the Court that not only six times but she was raped for more than 18 times. I find that her deposition is not at all corroborated by the medical evidence. ( 8 ) REGARDING her age PW-1 Ruliram, her father, has deposed on 18-11-1999 that she was aged 14 years only. Strangely enough, on 28. 4. 1999 the age according to Ruliram was 15-16 years as per the FIR Ex. P/1. The mother of the prosecutrix has not been examined. No birth certificate has been produced. No ration card of the family has been produced. Evidently, PW-1 Ruliram has deposed in an irresponsible manner regarding the age of the prosecutrix. PW-7 Dr. Ramlal has stated that he was a member of the Board of Doctors who examined Smt. Lali and she was aged about 17 years. Dr. Ramlal has further admitted that it was just an estimation and there was a further scope of 1-2 years difference in the estimated age. In this way, Smt. Lali could be aged up to 19 years. ( 9 ) THERE are no circumstances to suggest that if Smt. Lali went with the appellants she was taken against her will. According to prosecution story PW-4 Subhash, at about 8. 30 p. m. saw the prosecutrix going with six boys and he passed this information to PW-1 Ruliram However, PW-4 Subhash has denied that any girl was seen by him going with the boys. His statement Ex. P/8 was recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr. P. C. There is no mention in Ex. P/8 that the girl was being taken against her wishes. During her examination-in-chief, Smt. Lali does not say that she was forcibly taken away by the appellants. His statement Ex. P/8 was recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr. P. C. There is no mention in Ex. P/8 that the girl was being taken against her wishes. During her examination-in-chief, Smt. Lali does not say that she was forcibly taken away by the appellants. In her examination in-chief she does not say that she raised any alarm or resisted the appellants, whereas PW-1 Ruliram has stated that when they reached the Office of the Sheep and Wool Department Smt. Lali was loudly crying during intercourse by the appellant Akbar Khan in the Office of Sheep and Wool Department. ( 10 ) IN the light of the infirmities noted above and specially on account of the deposition of PW7 Dr. Ramlal, it does not remain believable that Smt. Lali was taken away against her wishes or was raped 18 times or more by the appellants. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned trial Court against the appellants is set aside. All the six appellants are acquitted of the charges. They shall be released forthwith if not needed in connection with any other case. Appeals allowed. .