Judgment : H. S. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 4- 3-1998 and order of sentence dated 17-3- 1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra held the appellant guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for ten years. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that the informant Jashoda Devi gave written report before the officer-in-charge- of Hunterganj police station stated inter alia therein that on 19-1-1996 at about 4. 00 pm. in the evening she had gone to collect cow dung from half a kilometer south towards in the forest and after collecting cow dung she was returning back at that time , the appellant caught her and when she tried to raise alarm, then he threatened her to commit murder and thereafter he threw her on the ground and committed rape on her. She came home but out of shame, she did not narrate the occurrence to anybody. One day, she saw that the man, who committed rape on her, was roaming near her house after a week of occurrence, then she narrated the occurrence to the villagers and village people caught him and handed over to the police. On this piece of written report, a case under Section 376 IPC was registered and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where learned 1 st Additional Sessions judge, Chatra recorded the evidence of witness both oral and documentary held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, ( 3 ) PROSECUTION has examined altogether seven witnesses, PW 1 is the informant herself PW 2 has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW 3 has been tendered for cross-examination. PW 4 has also been tendered, PW 5 has also been tendered, PW 6 is a formal witness. PW 7 is the doctor who examined the victim girl (PW 1) but did not find any sign of rape. PW 3 has been tendered for cross-examination. PW 4 has also been tendered, PW 5 has also been tendered, PW 6 is a formal witness. PW 7 is the doctor who examined the victim girl (PW 1) but did not find any sign of rape. In order to ascertain whether rape has been committed or not, she referred the victim to hazaribagh hospital but finding of hazaribagh hospital has not come on the record, ( 4 ) NOW, only PW 1 who is the victim lady. has supported the prosecution case and has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, she had gone to the field at about 4. 00 pm. in the evening for collecting cow-dung and while she was returning this appellant caught her and threw her on the ground and committed rape on her. She has in fact stated that appellant came over her body after throwing her on the ground but he did not commit anything, but to a court question, she replied that she was raped by this appellant. She has further deposed that on the next day of commission of rape, this appellant was roaming in the village and she narrated the occurrence to the villagers who caught him and handed over to the police. But from perusal of the FIR , it appears that occurrence took place on 191 -1996 and FIR was lodged on 25-1-1996, so there is delay of seven days in lodging of the FIR. She has asserted that she had not told the I. O. that appellant had penetrated his private part into her private part. She had further deposed that next day of the occurrence, she has reported the matter to the police but she admits that she has four children. ( 5 ) WHILE assailing the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the case is palpably false as there are number of contradictions in the evidence of pw1 when she says that on the next day of the occurrence, she gave written report to the police but in fact, she lodged the FIR after six days of the occurrence and rape is said to have been committed six days before whereas written report was given on 25- 1-1996. Further, she does not say that rape was committed, but to a Court question, she says that rape was committed. Further, she does not say that rape was committed, but to a Court question, she says that rape was committed. But in crossexamination, she again says that she had not made statement like this before the I. O. that rape was committed on her. It was also pointed out that even though those persons who caught and brought the accused person appellant to the police station have not supported the prosecution case and even pw5 who is her husband has not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, he has been tendered. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the evidence on record and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the state, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4-3-1998 and 17-3-1998 respectively is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .