JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. - This is an appeal filed by the appellant (through jail) against the judgment dated June 4/7, 1977 passed by Additional Sessions judge, Rohtak, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that prosecutrix, on August 1, 1996 at about 2.00 P.M., was going to her fields. Appellant Rambir assaulted her. He threw her on the ground and forcibly committed rape on her. Prosecutrix tried to resist by giving slaps and fist blows to the appellant, but she was not successful. Her husband Ishwar Singh (PW-8), who was just half an acre away, came to her rescue. Appellant, on seeing Ishwar Singh, ran away. FIR, Exhibit PO, was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix on August 2, 1996 at 8.20 AM. Special Report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on the same day, i.e., August 2, 1996 at 10.50 A.M. 3. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box PW-1 Dr. Jangsher Singh, who examined the appellant, PW-2 Rai Chand, Patwari, who proved the site plan, Exhibit PQ, PW-3 Sub-Inspector Randhir Singh, who submitted his report, Exhibit PD, before the Ilaqa Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, PW-4 Dr. Savita Singal, who examined the prosecutrix and submitted her report, Exhibit PL/1, PW-5 Dr. Surender Sukhija, PW-6 Dr. Vijay Kumar, who examined the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, PW-7 prosecutrix, PW-8 Ishwar Singh, the husband of the prosecutrix, PW-9 Sub Inspector Brij Lal and PW-10 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ranbir Singh, the Investigating Officer. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the prosecution case on different counts. He has stated that the affidavits submitted, Exhibit PE to Exhibit PK are faulty. These affidavits were submitted before the trial Court on March 15, 1997, as per the statement of the Public Prosecutor. The witnesses were present in the Court on that day, when the affidavits were tendered. Prosecution was duty bound to produce the witnesses in the Court for being cross-examined by the defence counsel. Learned counsel has further stated that there are glaring discrepancies between the statements of the prosecutrix and her husband Ishwar Singh. The witnesses were present in the Court on that day, when the affidavits were tendered. Prosecution was duty bound to produce the witnesses in the Court for being cross-examined by the defence counsel. Learned counsel has further stated that there are glaring discrepancies between the statements of the prosecutrix and her husband Ishwar Singh. Ranbir Singh, Assistant Sub- Inspector, the Investigating Officer, as per his investigation has stated that Ishwar Singh was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. If Ishwar Singh was present at that time, just half an acre away, he could have easily caught hold of the appellant, but no such version is coming forward from the side of Ishwar Singh that he made an attempt to catch hold of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment. He has stated that in para 6 of the judgment to convict the appellant, learned trial Court has gone out of its way to lean on the lacunae of the defence evidence. Prosecution has got to stand on its own legs. Trial Court has wrongly shifted the onus on to the defence, when it states that no oral or documentary evidence came forward from the side of the defence to prove their innocence. Onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 6. Learned counsel for the State has stated that as per Section 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an affidavit can be submitted and there was no need to produce the formal witness before the Court for cross-examination purposes. He has further stated that the statement of prosecutrix, which is corroborated by her husband Ishwar Singh, goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and perused the record with their assistance. 8. Formal affidavits were submitted before the trial Court on March 15, 1997. These affidavits are Exhibit PE to Exhibit PK. They have been sworn and attested by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak on the same day, i.e., March 15, 1997. Constables Ratan Parkash, Ram Kishan, Har Narain, Dharambir, Om Parkash, Jai Pal and MHC Baljit were present in the Court premises on that date. These affidavits are Exhibit PE to Exhibit PK. They have been sworn and attested by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak on the same day, i.e., March 15, 1997. Constables Ratan Parkash, Ram Kishan, Har Narain, Dharambir, Om Parkash, Jai Pal and MHC Baljit were present in the Court premises on that date. Prosecution should have brought these witnesses before the trial Court, on submitting their affidavits, so that if defence counsel wanted to cross-examine them, he could do so. As to why they were not brought before the trial Court for being cross-examined by the defence counsel, is best known to the Public Prosecutor. The only inference, one can come to is that, the prosecution had something to hide. 9. Dr. Savita Singal (PW-4) has stated in her testimony that there was no evidence of external or internal injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Vijay Kumar (PW-6). Injuries on the person of the prosecutrix were noticed by the doctor, they being an abrasion 1/2 cm on the left fore-arm and prosecutrix complained of pain in the chest and her legs. 10. Prosecutrix, in her testimony, has stated that the time of occurrence was 2.00 P.M. in the afternoon and the appellant, on seeing her husband, left the place and ran away. She has further stated that houses of Bhupal, Ram Chander and the appellant are in between the place of occurrence and the field, where she had been alleged to be raped. She did not know the name of the appellant, though she knew the names of the other persons of her village, whose houses fall on the way, when she goes to her fields. 11. Ishwar Singh (PW-8) has stated that he was in his fields, when he heard his wife crying for help. He was half an acre away, and as he went to that place, from where a noise was coming, he saw the appellant, who was lying on his wife in the Bajra crop. Appellant, on seeing Ishwar Singh, ran away. The distance of half an acre is a very small distance. Appellant would not have dared to touch the prosecutrix, as her husband was only half an acre away. If he did want to commit rape on her, he would have waited for the time when she was alone. Appellant, on seeing Ishwar Singh, ran away. The distance of half an acre is a very small distance. Appellant would not have dared to touch the prosecutrix, as her husband was only half an acre away. If he did want to commit rape on her, he would have waited for the time when she was alone. It is strange that though Ishwar Singh saw the appellant, lying on the top of his wife, he did not make an attempt to catch hold of the appellant. After all, appellant, to get up and to tie his clothes and then to run, would have taken some time. The testimony of prosecutrix is unreliable and untrustworthy. 12. Ranbir Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, the Investigating Officer (PW-10), in his statement, has stated in his cross-examination that as per his investigation, Ishwar Singh had not witnessed the happening and as such, he cannot be said to be an eye-witness. Ishwar Singh, at that time, was not present. He has been introduced as a witness at a later stage. Trial Court has, while convicting the appellant, relied heavily on the defence evidence. 13. There are glaring and serious discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix and Ishwar Singh. Affidavits though were submitted by Constables Ratan Parkash, Ram Kishan, Har Narain, Dharambir, Om Parkash, Jai Pal and MHC Baljit, but they were not brought into the witness box for cross-examination. Serious doubts are created. Prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated June 4, 1997/June 7, 1997 is hereby set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Appeal allowed.