Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 31 (JHR)

Vijay Rai v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2004-01-07

VISHNUDEO NARAYAN

body2004
Judgment Vishnudeo Narayan, J.- This appeal at the instance of the appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.5.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1997 by Shri Kapileshwar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Co-accused Jai Krishan Rai, Pramod Rai, Ranjit Rai and Janardan Rai were found guilty for the offence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were released on due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, co-accused Umesh Rai was not found guilty for the offence under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and he was accordingly acquitted. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report (Ext. 2) of P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari, the informant, an unmarried girl aged about fifteen to sixteen years, alleged to be one of the victims of the ravishment in this case, lodged before Jamua Police Station on 20.5.1996 at 21.05 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 17.5.1996 at 15.00 hours on the bank of the river known as Nibro one kilometer north of village Badadhia, P.S.-Jamua, District-Giridih and also of the occurrence of the assault perpetrated on P.W.2 Gania Devi and other which is said to have taken place 17.00 hours on 20.5.96 in the said village and a case was instituted against the appellant and others by drawing of a formal first information report (Ext. 3) on 20.5.96 at 21.05 hours and the said formal first information report and the written report were received on 25.5.96 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. 3. 3) on 20.5.96 at 21.05 hours and the said formal first information report and the written report were received on 25.5.96 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant Jayanti Kumari along with P.W.3 Dulari Devi, the wife of Chhapru Mahto had gone to the bank of the river situated north of her village to collect cowdung and they were collecting cow-dung there and in the meantime, appellant Vijay Rai along with acquitted co-accused Umesh Rai, both resident of village-Badadiha, came there and co-accused Umesh Rai caught her and appellant Vijay Rai caught P.W.3 Dulari Devi and they forcibly brought them on the bank of the said river where they felled them and appellant Vijay Rai ravished Dulari Devi after removing her clothes and co-accused Umesh Rai ravished her (Jayanti Kumari) after removing her clothes and when they attempted to raise alarms they intimidated them to be done to death and after satisfying their lust they went away to their respective houses. It is alleged that after the occurrence the informant and P.W.3 Dulari Devi came to their respective houses in the village and narrated the incident to their respective family members and it was decided in the village that there shall be a Panchayati in respect of the occurrence and due to that the informant and P.W.3 Dulari Devi did not come to the police station to report about the occurrence. It is further alleged that as a sequence to the said occurrence, the barbers of the village left doing shaving works of the members of the caste of Bhumihar Bhramins. The prosecution case further is that P.W.2 Gania Devi, the mother of the informant was returning to her house after making purchase from the shop of Lakhan Ram and co-accused Jai Krishna Rai, Janardan Rai, Ranjit Rai and Pramod Rai asked her as to why she does not send her daughter (the informant) to collect cow-dung and at this she retorted that she will cook on coal and she will not send her daughter for collecting cow-dung as you all misbehave with her and at this they abused P.W.2 Gania Devi and felled her on the ground by catching hold of her hair and when P.WA Kapadi Devi went to rescue her, she was also pushed as a result of which she fell down and sustained injury on her head. It is also alleged that P.W.6 Munshi Thakur also came there to rescue them and they also assaulted him. It is alleged that Hire Mahto, Karu Mahto, P.W.9 Kartik Thakur, Pravin Kumar and others came there and they intervened in the occurrence. 4. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to caste rivalry prevailing in the village. 5. The prosecution has examined, in all, thirteen witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W. 1 Jayanti Kumari, the informant who is said to have been ravished by acquitted co-accused Umesh Rai in the occurrence dated 17.5.1996, has turned hostile and she is not supporting the prosecution case regarding her alleged ravishment as well as the ravishment of P.W.3 Dulari Devi by the appellant. P.W.2 Gania Devi, the mother of the informant, has also turned hostile and she also does not support the prosecution case regarding the occurrence dated 17.5.1996 as well as the occurrence of assault which is said to have taken place on 20.5.1996. P.W.5 Adari Devi by relation the mother-in-law and working as labourer in the brick kiln, not very far away from the alleged place of occurrence, claims herself to be an eyewitness of the alleged ravishment of the informant as well as P.W.3 Dulari Devi, though her alleged companion P.W. 10 Anita Kumari and P.W.11 Sunita Kumari have turned hostile and they do not support the prosecution case. P.W.4 Kapadi Devi and P.W.6 Munsi Thakur are said to have sustained injuries alleged to have been caused by all the accused convicted under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code except acquitted accused Umesh Rai and appellant Vijay Rai in the occurrence of assault dated 20.5.1996 and they are also the hearsay witnesses regarding the alleged ravishment of the informant and P.W.3 Dulari Devi. P.W.9~Kartik Thakur and P.W.7 Rewat Thakur have turned hostile and they do not support the prosecution case. P.W.8 Sita Ram Thakur has been tendered. P.W.1~. Dr. Sujata, Jha has examined P.W.1 Jayantt Kumar and.P.W.3 Dulari Devi on 21.5.1996 at 12.45 hours and her report per her pen in respect thereof are Exts. 1 and 1/1 respectively. P.W. 13 Chandrama Pandit is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W.8 Sita Ram Thakur has been tendered. P.W.1~. Dr. Sujata, Jha has examined P.W.1 Jayantt Kumar and.P.W.3 Dulari Devi on 21.5.1996 at 12.45 hours and her report per her pen in respect thereof are Exts. 1 and 1/1 respectively. P.W. 13 Chandrama Pandit is the Investigating Officer of this case. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. Relying upon the testimony of P.W.3 Dulari Devi read with the testimony of P.W.5 Adari Devi coupled with the objective finding of P.W.13, the I.O. and the medical evidence on the record, the learned court below came to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below did not properly scrutinize the evidence on the record and has erroneously came to the finding of the guilt of• the appellant. It has been submitted that there has been unexplained inordinate delay of three days in lodging the written report of the alleged occurrence of ravishment of Jayanti Kumari, the informant and P.W.3 Dulari Devi and there is evidence on the record to show that a Panchayati was held on 17.5.1996 in which it has been decided to lodge a case regarding the occurrence but inspite of that the written report in respect thereof has been lodged on 20.5.1996 •after a subsequent distinct occurrence of assault perpetrated on P.W.2 Gania Devi, P.WA Kapadi Devi and P.W.6 Munsi Thakur setting up a false averment therein of the alleged ravishment of P. W.1 and PW.3 as a genesis of the said assault and the delay in lodging the case of ravishment in the facts and circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution case and the written report of the informant is the result of consultation and deliberation containing embellished facts therein when in fact no occurrence as alleged on 17.5.1996 had ever taken place. Elucidating further it has been submitted that the written report has been lodged on 20.5.1996 at 21.05 hours and the formal first information report was drawn at that very time instituting a case in respect thereof but the written report and the formal first information report have been received on 23.5.1996 in the court empowered to take cognizance and in such a situation it appears that the written report is ante-timed, antedated and is bereft of true version of the alleged occurrence. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the cases of Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1973 SC 501 ), Ishwar Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1976 se 2423), Meharaj Singh YS. State of U.P. [ (1994)5 SCC 188 ] and Jang Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan [ (2001) 9 SCC 704 ]. It has also been submitted that in the alleged occurrence dated 17.5.1996. P.W.1, the informant and P.W.3 are said to have been ravished by acquitted accused Umesh Rai and this appellant respectively but the case of ravishment of P.W.1, the informant by co-accused Umesh Rai was found to be false as per the evidence on the record and he was acquitted and in this view of the matter, the prosecution case regarding" the manner of the occurrence is totally false and the learned court below ought to have considered this aspect of the matter and the part of occurrence having been found false, the allegation against the appellant also stands doubtful in respect thereof. It has further been submitted that the medical evidence on tile record is not at all in conformity with the prosecution case of the ravishment of P.W.3 Dulari Devi by this appellant as the medical witness did not find any cogent material in course of examination of P.W.3 Dulari Devi to lead an inference that she has been ravished in the alleged occurrence and furthermore P.W.5 Adari Devi has categorically deposed that due to her arrival P.W.3 Dulari Devi and P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari could not be ravished by the appellant and acquitted accused Umesh Rai respectively. Lastly it has been contended that there is caste rivalry in the village and the barbers of the village have left doing shaving work of the members of Bhumihar Bhramin caste and to feed fad their grudge, this appellant, who is the member of Bhumihar Bhramin caste has been falsely roped in this case along with other accused person 'of the same caste and thus the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 8. Refuting the contention aforesaid it has been submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there was legal and reliable evidence on the record to establish the fact that the appellant has ravished P.W.3 Dulari Devi in the occurrence in question but co-accused Umesh Rai has been acquitted in view of the fact that the informant Jayanti Kumari did not support the prosecution case and has turned hostile and therefore, the acquittal of co-accused Umesh Rai for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. does not in any way cast any aspersion to the authenticity of the case of ravishment of P.W.3 Dulari Devi by this appellant and the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application under the Indian Evidence Act and the settled principle of law is that the truth has to be discerned from the falsehood and chaff from the grain and once there is impression of ring of truth in the evidence on the record then it has to be given effect to in finding the appellant guilty and the learned court below her found the appellant guilty for ravishing P.W.3 Dulari Devi in spite of the fact of acquittal of co-accused Umesh Rai in respect thereof and viewed thus, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. 9. It is essential to mention at the very outset that the written report (Ext. 2) of P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari, the informant is the basis for conviction of the appellant in this case and the said written report also contains the L.T.I. of P.W. 3 Dulari Devi as a witness thereon and she has deposed that she had gone to the police station with P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari to lodge the written report regarding the occurrence on 20.5.1996 and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O. after institution of the case on that very day along with P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari. She has further deposed that she was collecting cow-dung about 3 o'clock in the day of the occurrence along with P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari and appellant Vijay Rai came there but she could not see him coming there and she attempted to flee away from there and the appellant caught her and took her in his lap towards the said river where he ravished her and whenever she attempted to raise alarms he stuffed her mouth by her Sari. She has also deposed that the appellant has ravished her against her wish after removing her clothes. She has further deposed that acquitted co-accused Umesh Rai had caught P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari and he has also ravished her and after satisfying their lust they had fled away from there. Her evidence is further to the effect that some female labourers of the brick kiln had come there and she has narrated the incident to them' and thereafter she came to her house where she has also narrated the incident to her mother-in-law Parvati Devi. In para-4 of her cross-examination she has deposed that there was no person present in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence where she and Jayanti Kumari were ravished and thereby she excludes the presence of P.W.5 Adari Devi to have come to the place of occurrence on her alarms. In para-8 of her cross-examination she has deposed that the appellant has taken her five or six paces in her lap from the place where he caught her and during that occurrence she has raised alarms. In para-11 of her cross-examination she has deposed that she was felled on the ground, which contains grass, but the ground was dry and there was no stones or any rough substance and also there was no sand. She has also deposed that she has resisted in course of her ravishment when the appellant had climbed over her body as a result of which there were scratches and abrasions caused on her hand, hip and back but in the same breath she has deposed that except her hand there was no scratch over her body. The said Parvati Devi has not taken oath in this case to support the fact that P.W.3 has narrated to her regarding the incident of her ravishment. The said Parvati Devi has not taken oath in this case to support the fact that P.W.3 has narrated to her regarding the incident of her ravishment. P.W.5 Adari Devi has deposed that she was going to brick kiln to work as labourer with P.W.10 Anita Kumari and P.W.11 Sunita Kumari and when she reached near the said river she had seen the appellant catching hold of P.W.3 Dulari Devi and acquitted co-accused Umesh Rai catching hold of Jayanti Kumari and they felled them on the ground and they ravished them and thereafter she proceeded to the brick kiln. In para-3 of her cross-examination, she has further deposed that the appellant and acquitted co-accused Umesh Rai had taken away Dulari Devi and Jayanti Kumari to two distinct places for ravishing them. She has also deposed that she has raised alarms as a result of that they fled away from there and they could not ravish P.W.3 Dulari Devi as well as Jayanti Kumari. P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari, the informant has deposed that she has not been ravished by any person and no occurrence of her ravishment has ever taken place. In para-8 of her cross-examination she has deposed that she does not know who has brought the written report before her and the said written report was not read over and explained to her. P.W.3 Gania Devi, the mother of the informant has deposed that at the time of the alleged occurrence P. W.1 Jayanti Kumari was at her house and P.W.3 Dulari Devi was also present in her house and they have not gone to collect cow-dung on the day of the occurrence. She has also deposed that no occurrence regarding their ravishment has ever taken place. P.W.5 Adari Devi is the resident of village Badadiha where P.W.1 and P.W.3 and the appellant and acquitted accused Umesh Rai are residents of. The said Adari Devi is the mother-in-law of P.W.3 by relationship bf the •village. She claims herself to be the ocular witness of the alleged occurrence of ravishment but there is no whisper in the written report (Ext. 2) regarding her presence at the place of occurrence. Even P.W.3 Dulari Devi does not name her specifically to be present at the place of occurrence. P.W.10 and P.W.11, who according to P.W.5 were going with her, have deposed that they have no knowledge about the alleged occurrence. 2) regarding her presence at the place of occurrence. Even P.W.3 Dulari Devi does not name her specifically to be present at the place of occurrence. P.W.10 and P.W.11, who according to P.W.5 were going with her, have deposed that they have no knowledge about the alleged occurrence. Therefore, there is a big question mark regarding the presence of P.W.5 Adari Devi at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Therefore, her evidence in the facts and circumstances of this case lacks credence and even her evidence is acted upon then she has ruled out the ravishment of Dulari Devi as well as Jayanti Kumari by the appellant and acquitted co-accused Umesh Rai respectively. P.W.12 has examined P.W.3 Dulari Devi on 21.5.1996 at 13.00 hours and she has deposed not to have found any external injury on her body or any internal injury on her private part. She has also deposed not to have found any sperm, dead or alive, in the vaginal swab of P.W.3 as well as semen or foreign hair and her hymen reveals old rupture admitting two fingers. Said Dulari Devi is a married woman and the medical witness has assessed her age between 16 to 17 years. Inspite of her objective findings aforesaid on clinical examination of P.W.3 Dulari Devi referred to above, the medical witness has stated that in her opinion the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The said opinion of the medical witness appears to be palpably incorrect and not based on materials as found by her. Similar is the evidence of this witness on examination of Jayanti Kumari. In this view of the matter, the opinion of the medical witness lacks credence. In a case of forcibly felling on the ground for committing rape and specially when there is protest or resistance, the injuries on the back, hip buttock and thigh of the ravished woman must exist. In case of forceful ravishment, there is often laceration on fourchette, posterior, inflammation and bruising of the labi and when resistance is offered-marks of violence such as bruises, scratches of finger nails etc. may be found on the external genitals, perineum, abdomen, chest, back limbs, neck and face and love bite marks are also found on the cheek, neck, thigh etc. due to sucking pressure and tooth imprints. may be found on the external genitals, perineum, abdomen, chest, back limbs, neck and face and love bite marks are also found on the cheek, neck, thigh etc. due to sucking pressure and tooth imprints. The absence of any external as well as any internal injury on the person of P.W.3 Dulari Devi puts a question mark to the very credibility of the prosecution case regarding her ravishment in the manner as alleged. The medical evidence, therefore, is not at all in conformity with the manner of occurrence of the alleged ravishment of P.W.3 in this case as alleged. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the solitary testimony of P.W.3 Dulari Devi uncorroborated by any evidence of natural, independent and competent witness of the occurrence and equally uncorroborated by the medical evidence lacks credence. P.W.13, the I.O. has deposed to have inspected the place of occurrence on 23.5.1996 at 13,15 hours i.e. on the 7th day of the occurrence. He has further deposed that he has not found any incriminating articles at the place of occurrence, though he has deposed to have found trampling marks in a ditch which is said to be the place of occurrence of this case. It is. pertinent to mention here that as per the evidence of P.W.3 she is said to have been ravished on the bank of the river whereas P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari was ravished to a distinct place separately. There is no evidence on the record to show that P.W.3 Dulari Devi has been ravished in the ditch where the I.O. has found trampling marks after 7th day of the occurrence. Therefore, the objective finding of the I.O. referred to above has no relevance in this case, P.W.3 has further deposed that she has sustained injuries on her breast but the medical witness in her report categorically negates the existence of such injury. She has also deposed that there was stains of semen on her petticoat which she has shown to the doctor, but the medical witness does not depose in respect thereof in her evidence on oath. P.W.13, the I.O. has deposed that he has not found any injury on the person of P.W.3 and P.W.1 and he has also not seized their clothes. P.W.13, the I.O. has deposed that he has not found any injury on the person of P.W.3 and P.W.1 and he has also not seized their clothes. It is equally relevant• to mention here that P.W.3 Dulari Devi has deposed that she was taken by the appellant in his lap and when she attempted to raise alarms her mouth was stuffed by the appellant by putting Sari in her mouth, but the I.O. in para-31 of his evidence has deposed that P.W.3 has not made any such statement before him in course of her examination. The I.O. has further deposed that P.W.3 has also not stated before him that female labourers of the brick kiln had come to the place of occurrence on her alarms and she has narrated the incident to them. The I.O. has also deposed in para-25 of his evidence that there was no Panchayati in the village regarding thl3 occurrence. The evidence of the I.O., therefore, casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the prosecution case regarding the ravishment of P.W.3 Dulari Devi as alleged. The learned court below did not properly scan and scrutinize the evidence on the record and it appears that he has been swayed by conjectures and surmises and not on the basis of the legal evidence on the record in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and he has committed a manifest error in respect thereof. 10. The occurrence of alleged ravishment is said to have taken place on 17.5.1996 at 15.00 hours. P.W. 3 in para: 18 has deposed that Panchayati had taken place regarding the said occurrence on 17.5.1996 and it was decided in the said Panchayat to lodge a case regarding the said occurrence. No case in pursuance to the verdict of the Panchayat was instituted on 17.5.1996 or even thereafter and it appears very surprising enough in the facts and circumstances of this case and when an occurrence of assault is said to have taken place between four co-accused persons except the appellant and acquitted accused Umesh Rai in which P.W.2 Gania Devi, P.WA Kartik Thakur and P.W.6 Munsi Thakur are said to have been assaulted and they have sustained injuries on their person then thereafter a composite case regarding both the occurrence i.e. the occurrence of ravishment as well as of the assault was instituted by P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the case regarding the alleged ravishment of P.W.1 and P.W.3 immediately soon after the occurrence as per the verdict of the Panchayat and no explanation in respect of the said inordinate delay is forthcoming on the record. Furthermore the written report and the formal first information report have been received on 23.5.1996 in the court empowered to take cognizance when a composite case regarding both the occurrence was instituted on 20.5.1996 at 21.05 hours. No explanation is also forthcoming in respect of the delayed receipt in the court concerned. In the case of Thulia Kali (supra) It has been observed by the Apex Court that first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can• hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. Here in this case, the occurrence was not reported for more than three days after the alleged occurrence though the police station was only five kilometers away from the, place of occurrence. It is therefore, unsafe in the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above to base conviction upon the uncorroborated solitary testimony of the informant which is replete with inherent improbabilities and material contradictions. The formal first information report and the written report have been received on 23.5.1996 in the Court empowered to take cognizance when the formal first information report was drawn at 21.05 hours on 20.5.1996. No explanation is also forthcoming on the record in respect thereof. The formal first information report and the written report have been received on 23.5.1996 in the Court empowered to take cognizance when the formal first information report was drawn at 21.05 hours on 20.5.1996. No explanation is also forthcoming on the record in respect thereof. In the case of Ishwar Singh (supra) it has been observed by the Apex Court that the extraordinary delay in sending the F.I.R. is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In the case of Meharaj Singh (supra) it has been observed by the Apex Court, which runs thus :- "F.I.R. in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the F.I.R. is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any, and delay in lodging the F.I.R. often results in embellishment which is a creature of an afterthought and on account of delay, the F.I.R. not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. It has further been submitted that if the F.I.R. is received late in the court it can give rise to an inference that the F.I.R. was not lodged at the time it was alleged to have been recorded and the facts and circumstances are indicative of the fact that the F.I.R. came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and it was ante timed unless, of course, the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the F.I.R. by the local Magistrate. The external check equally important is the sending of the copy of th6 F.I.R. along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. The external check equally important is the sending of the copy of th6 F.I.R. along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C., is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the F.I.R. and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected• in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the F.I.R. came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged F.I.R. In the case of Jang Singh and another (supra) has been observed by the Apex Court that the delay of three days in forwarding the first information report to the Magistrate in absence of any explanation given in respect thereof is fatal. Here in this case, no explanation is forthcoming on the record regarding the abnormal delay in lodging the written report about the occurrence in question as well as the receipt of the formal first information report and the written report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance and in such a situation there is every possibility of embellishment which is a creature of afterthought, consultation and deliberation of P. W.1, the informant, P.W.3 Dulari Devi, P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6, in falsely implicating the appellant in this case due to prevailing caste rivalry between barbers and Bhumihar Bhramins of the said village. The approach of the learned court below in para-18 of the impugned judgment in respect thereof is palpably incorrect and the same is based on no good grounds supported by any legal evidence on the record. The inordinate delay in lodging the written report regarding the occurrence of ravishment renders the prosecution case suspicious which casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the texture of the prosecution case. The false implication of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case due to caste rivalry cannot be ruled out in this case and thus, the defence version appears to be natural and probable. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment suffers with illegality and it cannot be sustained. 11. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The false implication of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case due to caste rivalry cannot be ruled out in this case and thus, the defence version appears to be natural and probable. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment suffers with illegality and it cannot be sustained. 11. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned court below is set aside. The appellant is found not guilty and he is, accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.