JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.: - Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, on 3-8-1992 in sessions trial No. 68 of 1991, acquitting both the accused for the offence under sections 376, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the state has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before us. 2. With the assistance of the learned Astt. Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Daga, advocate, we have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence. The prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses to prove its case which was that in the night of 15th December, 1990, the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Prema had gone to her father's house at Sarwadi along with one Vijay, but her father did not allow her to enter in his house because she has performed inter caste marriage. She, therefore, left Sarwadi and came to the Bus stand along with this Vijay. They had no bus to take them to Nagpur, therefore, they stayed around that place, when in the night, the accused Purushottam and Ramchandra committed rape on her in presence of Vijay by pointing out a knife to him as a threat to his life. 3. As aforesaid, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove its case that these accused persons are guilty of rape. Out of these witnesses, P.W. 1 Prema is the prosecutrix, P.W. 2 Vijay Gajbhiye is the person who accompanied her. P.W. 3 to P.W. 6 are other persons who were examined to prove the presence of the victim and the accused around the scene of offence, but all have been declared hostile. 4. P.W. 7 is the doctor who has categorically stated that P.W. 1 was a adult woman of 30 years in good health and was habituated to intercourse. On her medical examination, she did not find any marks of violent on the body of P.W. 1 Prema. She, therefore, did not give any opinion regarding intercourse with Prema against her wishes by any person. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. 5. It will thus, be seen that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim and the accused persons were there on 15-12-1990 in the circumstance as alleged by them. 6. She, therefore, did not give any opinion regarding intercourse with Prema against her wishes by any person. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. 5. It will thus, be seen that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim and the accused persons were there on 15-12-1990 in the circumstance as alleged by them. 6. Apart from that, the prosecutrix is a woman of 30 years of ago having three children and thus, it is an accepted position that she is accustomed to intercourse. It is an admitted position on record by P.W. 1 Prema and P.W. 2 Vijay that there was no relationship or friendship between them two and it is, therefore, very difficult for us to accept that a woman of that age would allow her body to be violated twice in presence of a stranger i.e. Vijay Gajbhiye merely because a knife was held near the abdomen of that Vijay. It is difficult to believe that the woman would sacrifice her chastity for preventing an assault on a person to whom she is not related in any manner. 7. This is one aspect of the evidence. P.W. 1 prosecutrix stated that it was in the night of 15th December, 1990, when she went Sarwadi to her father's place, she was not allowed to enter the house as no bus was available for returning to Nagpur, and in such circumstances the rape as alleged by her took place. She has candidly stated in her evidence that P.W. 2 Vijay was present at all times. In fact, her case is that it was under the threat of causing injury to Vijay that she was made to succumb to intercourse. 8. However, P.W. 2 Vijay has a different story to tell. In his examination-in-chief, he gives a wrong recitals of the manner in which they left Nagpur and for which purpose, they left Nagpur. According to this witness Vijay, he along with P.W. 1 went to Sarwadi from Ralegaon at 8 p.m. and they spent time outside the house of P.W. 1 Prema's father by the side of fire through out the night. He stated that on 14-12-1990, they searched for father of Prema, but he did not met them and, therefore, they went to Mamdapur. The might of 14th December, 1990 was spent by them at the relative of Vijay in Mamdapur. He stated that on 14-12-1990, they searched for father of Prema, but he did not met them and, therefore, they went to Mamdapur. The might of 14th December, 1990 was spent by them at the relative of Vijay in Mamdapur. He is eloquently silent regarding coming back to Sarwadi on 15-12-1990. In fact, he claims that they left Mamdapur for Sarwadi on 13-12-1990 around 7 p.m. and reached Sarwadi around 8.30 p.m. They noticed the house of Prema's father locked. They, therefore, returned to the Bus stop of Sarwadi and waited there. Since the bus was not available, they went to stay with Rama and then he proceeds to describe the assault on Prema by the accused around 1 a.m. in the night of 15-12-1990. He also speaks of the accused threatened him with a knife alternately and the other persons ravished Prema. This witness has to say in the Court that he came to know of the names of these accused persons because while raping they were calling each other by name. This deposition if accepted in toto would indicate that the incident did not occur on 15-12-1990, that the accused persons were comfortable enough while raping to talk amongst each other and while all this was going on, this witness was standing there because he was at the point of a knife. The entire deposition of this witness is, therefore, unbelievable and has been rightly rejected by the trial Judge. 9. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 Prema prosecutrix that after she was raped, she went out and in the place nearby the people were singing Bhajan and she went and sat there. It is unacceptable to any reasonable prudent man that a woman who is ravished twice would go to a place of Bhajan and quietly sit there without telling all the tragedy that has been fallen on her. Rejection of the evidence of such a person is in our opinion the only crux that was open to the learned trial Judge. He has rejected the evidence of both P.W. 1 Prema and P.W. 2 Vijay as there is no proof as to when the incident took place, whether it was on 13th December, 14th December or 15th December, 1990 is not known. The woman is found to be habituated to intercourse. He has rejected the evidence of both P.W. 1 Prema and P.W. 2 Vijay as there is no proof as to when the incident took place, whether it was on 13th December, 14th December or 15th December, 1990 is not known. The woman is found to be habituated to intercourse. In such circumstances, on such evidence, it is impossible to sustain the order of conviction. The order of acquittal as passed by the trial Judge, is therefore, proper. We see no reason to interfere with the appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----