JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J. Four accused persons namely Badrilal s/o Ramchandra, Prahlad s/o Bhuvan, Heeralal s/o Ambaram and Shafi Khan s/o Aliyar Khan were tried before 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 345/2000 and by judgment and order dated 16th April, 2001 passed by him in the aforesaid sessions trial, appellants stand convicted u/s 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded, accused Badrilal has filed Criminal Appeal No. 486/2001; accused Heeralal has filed Criminal Appeal No. 469/2001; accused Chunna @ Shafi Khan has filed Criminal Appeal No. 474/2001 and accused Prahlad has filed Criminal Appeal No. 485/2001. Since all the above mentioned appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and order of conviction, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Briefly stated, the prosecution's case is that Gayatribai (PW-1) resided in quarter situated behind Vikram Nagar Gaushala at Ujjain with her husband and mother-in-law, Kashibai (PW-2). On the date of incident, Gayatribai (PW-1) had gone to attend call of nature behind "Gaushala" at about 7 o'clock in the morning. When she was attending the call of nature, appellant Badrilal came from behind her. He caught hold of her hand and threw down her. He thereafter took off the towel wrapped around his waist and he also put off his underwear and committed sexual intercourse with Gayatribai (PW-1). Meanwhile, appellant Prahlad also reached there and when appellant Badrilal completed the act of intercourse, appellant Prahlad also committed sexual intercourse with Gayatribai (PW-1). Thereafter both of them ran away from the spot as Bhuribai (PW-4) had reached there by that time. Gayatribai (PW-1) went to her house crying and she told her mother-in-law Kashibai (PW-2) about the incident. Thereafter, she went to Police Station, Madhav Nagar, Ujjain with Bhuribai (PW-4) and made First Information Report (Ex.D/2). She was sent for medical examination by the Police. Dr. Asha Sultanekar (PW-10) prepared report (Ex.P/10) after examining her. Police prepared spot map (Ex.P/8) and recorded statements of witnesses during the investigation. Appellants were arrested vide arrest memo (P/1, P/2, P/3, P/4 and P/9) and appellant Badrilal and Prahlad were examined by Dr. R.K. Tiwari (PW-9) and Appellant Chunna @ Shafi Khan was examined by Dr. R.C. Pandya (PW-5). After due investigation, charge-sheet against the appellants was filed. Police prepared spot map (Ex.P/8) and recorded statements of witnesses during the investigation. Appellants were arrested vide arrest memo (P/1, P/2, P/3, P/4 and P/9) and appellant Badrilal and Prahlad were examined by Dr. R.K. Tiwari (PW-9) and Appellant Chunna @ Shafi Khan was examined by Dr. R.C. Pandya (PW-5). After due investigation, charge-sheet against the appellants was filed. Appellant and other co-accused persons were tried for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code as they abjured guilt and pleaded not guilty. After trial, all of them were convicted u/s 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. Learned counsel for appellants in all the appeals, has contended that the testimony of prosecutrix Gayatribai is not worthy of reliance and conviction of the appellants based on her testimony is not sustainable. It is settled position of law that if the testimony of prosecutrix is found wholly reliable and trustworthy, conviction can be based upon it without seeking for its corroboration from any other evidence. Gayatribai (PW-1) has deposed in her statement that appellant Badrilal committed sexual intercourse with her and when he completed the act, appellant Badrilal caught hold of her hands and pressed them against the ground and appellant Prahlad committed sexual intercourse with her. She has deposed that thereafter Bhuribai arrived there and both the aforesaid appellants ran away from there. She has deposed that appellants Heeralal and Chunna @ Shafi Khan also arrived there at the spot, but they did nothing to her. The story enumerated by her in First Information Report is somewhat different. From the perusal of First Information Report, it appears that in F.I.R. Gayatribai has stated that while she was trying to run away appellant Chunna caught hold of her leg and caused her to fall down on the ground. Thereafter appellant Prahlad committed rape on her. She has deviated from her statement made in First Information Report and also from her case diary statement. She has exonerated appellants Heeralal and Chunna @ Shafi Khan from any overt act, after perusing carefully the entire testimony of Gayatribai (PW-1), her statement does not appear to be of that quality that it could be relied upon even without being corroborated from any other evidence. She has exonerated appellants Heeralal and Chunna @ Shafi Khan from any overt act, after perusing carefully the entire testimony of Gayatribai (PW-1), her statement does not appear to be of that quality that it could be relied upon even without being corroborated from any other evidence. Her testimony requires close scrutiny and could be accepted only on being corroborated by medical or any other independent evidence. According to the prosecution Bhuribai (PW-4) has reached on the spot and she had seen appellants Badrilal and Prahlad on the spot, but this witness has not supported prosecution's case and she has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. There is nothing substantive in her statement which may lend support to prosecution. She has deposed that Gayatribai has told her that appellant Prahlad has committed bad act (KHOTA KAM) with her. Thus, testimony of Gayatribai (PW-1) does not get any support from the testimony of Bhuribai (PW-4). Medical evidence also does not support her version. Dr. Asha Sultanekar (PW-10) examined Gayatribai on 17-9-2000 i.e. next day of the incident. According to her testimony, she did not find any external injury on the person of Gayatribai. She has deposed that no definite opinion regarding the commitment of rape on Gayatribai could be given. Thus, the testimony of the prosecutrix Gayatribai is not corroborated by any other type of evidence. Gayatribai (PW-1) has admitted in paragraph 10 of her statement that at the time of incident she sustained abrasions on her back and legs but in medical examination, no mark of any injury have been found. She has also stated in paragraph 14 of her statement that there was swelling and pain in her private part after the incident. She has also stated that she had told to Dr. that she has got swelling and pain, but Dr. Asha Sultanekar (PW-10) who had examined Gayatribai (PW-1), has specifically deposed in her statement that her hymen was old teared and there was no injury or swelling. Gayatribai (PW-1) has stated in paragraph 14 of her statement that her lip was cut and her teeth were broken. But, this fact is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. From the evidence produced by the prosecution it is crystal clear that no injury of any kind was found on the person of the prosecutrix. Gayatribai (PW-1) has stated in paragraph 14 of her statement that her lip was cut and her teeth were broken. But, this fact is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. From the evidence produced by the prosecution it is crystal clear that no injury of any kind was found on the person of the prosecutrix. Absence of injury on any part of the body particularly the private part of the body of the prosecutrix, in the facts and circumstances of the case, probabilise absence of any coitus. Statements made by prosecutrix Gayatribai (PW-1) regarding sustaining of injuries indicates that she has no hesitation in making false and/or exaggerated statements regarding the facts. It is not safe to base a conviction on the basis of such type of statement. The testimony of Gayatribai (PW-1) is not wholly reliable and truthful and her testimony is not corroborated on material points by any other evidence or medical evidence. Therefore, it cannot be held that appellants Badrilal and Prahlad had sexual intercourse with Gayatribai (PW-1). As pointed earlier, Gayatribai (PW-1) herself has stated in her statement that Heeralal and Chunna @ Shafi Khan did nothing with her. Learned trial judge has in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, hold that they were present on the spot, but did nothing to prevent Badrilal and Prahlad from committing the offence. Therefore, their intention was also to commit sexual intercourse with Gayatribai. Learned trial Court has not considered the fact that the statement of Gayatribai (PW-1) regarding presence of Chunna @ Shafi Khan and Heeralal was not trustworthy as Gayatribai (PW-1) has not been found a wholly reliable witness. Therefore, even presence of aforesaid appellants on the spot is rendered doubtful and all the appellants deserve to get benefit of doubt. Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 486, 469, 474 and 485 of 2001 succeed and the appellants are acquitted of the charge u/s 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code. Appellants Chunna @ Shafi Khan and Heeralal are on bail. Their bail bounds stand discharged. Appellants Badrilal and Prahlad are in jail. They shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case. A copy of this judgment shall be kept on record of Criminal Appeal Nos. 469, 474 and 485 of 2001. Final Result : Allowed