JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals arise out of common judgment dated 20.8.2001 passed by the trial Court convicting each of appellants for offences u/s. 376(2)(g) & Section 343, IPC, and sentencing them to undergo 10 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (in default, further RI for one year) on first count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default, to undergo RI for 2 months) on second count. Appellant-Kaluram was further convicted u/ss. 366, & 366-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default, further two months RI under each count. 2. At the initial stage only two accused-Kaluram & Lallulal alias Lala Meena were charge-sheeted and third accused-Sanwara as having been absconding, was subsequent charge-sheeted. All the three accused persons were charged by the trial Court for offence u/ss. 376(2)(g) & 343 IPC. However, accused-Kaluram was additionally charged for offences u/ss. 366 & 366-A IPC. Each of accused-appellants denied, the charges and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses including prosecutrix, and exhibited 22 documents. 3. Learned counsel for the defence asserted that if the prosecution case is believed as has been narrated by Supyar (PW 15) then according to her statement, in the predawn hours of the day when she had come out of her home to urinate, she saw Narangi talking with Kalu. As soon as she made her presence felt Kalu concealed himself behind the tree. She had a conversation with Narangi who narrated to Supyar that she was talking to Kalu because he was belonging to her village and he demanded a match stick to lit `bidi'. She has consistently maintained this story. However, this story runs contrary to the statement of Narangi that Kalu used force on her. Prosecutrix in her statement to Supyar said that Kalu wanted to hide himself as soon as he noticed the presence of Supyar. If he was so scared of mere presence of Supyar, then a brave endeavour by such a man who himself was hiding behind the tree, cannot be expected to be to the extent of having carried her to distinct places of Jaipur by travelling in a public transport. Thus basic ingredient of the culpable act as stated by prosecution wherein the story starts that Narangi was under constant threat of Kaluram, is subjected to doubt. Thus basic ingredient of the culpable act as stated by prosecution wherein the story starts that Narangi was under constant threat of Kaluram, is subjected to doubt. 4. Learned counsel for the defence further submitted that statement of Narangi is full of contradictions. She in her statement stated that as she was under threat by accused-Kaluram at the field on 11.2.1999, so she did not narrate to anybody that Kallu had threatened her. According to her cross-examination , she stated that she did not state this to anyone in her relations. There is no explanation as to why threat having been given to her in the field, was not disclosed to family relations when she was not in the proximity of Kalu in her home. Thus, the allegation of having that being given to her by Kalu at the field, is not believable. 5. Further she states in her cross-examination that she was threatened at the point of a knife by Kaluram to accompany him to Jaipur. This statement was not in her police statement. The question of threat as contained in her cross-examination, was not available in Ex.D/3 as admitted by her in cross-examination. She has also admitted that this statement that Kalu caught hold of her and threatened that if she would not accompany he would kill her, is not in Ex.D/3 & D/4. It is quite noticeable as to why she did not say so when their statements were recorded. She expressly states that she is not aware of her age and clearly states her age only by estimation. She also states that Lala was not known to her previously. No identification parade qua Lala was conducted. Lala was identified for the first time in Court. When she was confronted with her age her explanation was weak. She also admits that she suffered no physical pain or torture of physical nature when she was ravished, as stated, repeatedly. 6. So much so she has even stated that this is wrong that demand was raised by Kalu for match stick, because since Supyar had seen them so Kalu told her to say to her sister Supyar that he was demanding match stick, otherwise he would kill her. Again such a story of threat allegedly given by Kalu is also conspiciously missing in her statement Ex.D/3. Again such a story of threat allegedly given by Kalu is also conspiciously missing in her statement Ex.D/3. If her statement is correct then story of Supyar is either wrong or this lady is not telling correct facts. 7. The basic ingredients of the prosecution story started with eloping of this lady. At that time Kalu came to her and demanded match stick. This fact has been narrated by Supyar. The same is not denied by the prosecutrix. beginning of the story in this background does not inspire confidence. 8. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the lady had not been taken away by force. Use of force is the story cooked up by the prosecutrix. If the story given by her is correct that she was threatened at field, then she did not speak of it to anybody in her relations, which is very unlikely. Later on, in the pre-dawn hours of the day she gives explanation to Supyar that she had come out to given match stick to Kalu to lit `badi'. The explanation given would not be sufficient to explain the factum of coming out of home in early hours. That being the position, it appears that this was settled meeting and they had fixed their rendezvous for meeting and on being interferred by her sister, she narrated the story that she came out of home to give match stick to Kalu. 9. Be that as it may, the circumstances depict that she was party to the episode of having constended to go with Kalu, however, after few days of her abduction by Kalu, she had backed out to save herself. The story of rape has been put forward by her as her defence. 10. There are improbabilities and improprieties in the story of prosecution. Medical evidence negates the allegation of rape. She was carrying pregnancy of 3 & half month and if she would have been put to physical torture during the rape on the part of the accused as deposed, then there were chances of a miscarriage of her pregnancy. The doctor has further stated that there were no marks of any kind of violence on her person which is not natural thing in the counsel put forward in the story of prosecution. Had the prosecution story been correct, there must have been multiple impressions of assault made on her. The doctor has further stated that there were no marks of any kind of violence on her person which is not natural thing in the counsel put forward in the story of prosecution. Had the prosecution story been correct, there must have been multiple impressions of assault made on her. There being no corroboration of the fact of use of force, whole story being fabricated and engineered, therefore, cannot be accused as truthful to sustain conviction as recorded by the trial Court. 11. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor stated that may be Narangi was consenting party but she was minor as she was stated to be 16-17 years and thus her consent is meaningless. A minor cannot consent to the kind of action which has taken place. Therefore, whatever argument advanced on behalf of the defence, cannot be considered mitigating circumstance to the action of the accused, which they have committed. Subjecting an innocent, rustic lady to an inhuman treatment is shocking. They have been rightly dealt with by the learned trial Judge. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments made at the Bar and perused the record. The story begins with Kalu's threat to Narangi in the field with a knife. This fact is not disclosed by Narangi to any one in her relations even when Kalu was not, in her proximity at her home. Can it be expected that her mental fibre has become so weak that she would not be able to overcome a threat given even in a broad day light at field? When she went home no one was there to peruse the threat. Had it been true then she could have confided to disclose this threat of Kalu to her sister Supyar admittedly present at home, if not to anybody else in her relations. Non-explanation is available which can lend assurance to her claim. Thus beginning of story of the prosecution, does not inspire confidence. 13. Second stage of prosecution story is when Narangi is seen in the company of Kalu. No sooner Supyar appears at the scene of occurrence, Kalu makes an attempt to hide himself by going behind the tree. It shows that he was afraid of disclosure of his relations with Narangi. Supyar states that Narangi told her that she was giving match stick to Kalu to lit `bidi'. Both the sisters are not in unison. No sooner Supyar appears at the scene of occurrence, Kalu makes an attempt to hide himself by going behind the tree. It shows that he was afraid of disclosure of his relations with Narangi. Supyar states that Narangi told her that she was giving match stick to Kalu to lit `bidi'. Both the sisters are not in unison. That makes the position that their versions duly made up by prosecutrix, are full of contradictions and they are telling lies. Supyar saw Narangi and Kalu in a secluded company at about 4.00 a.m. in early hours of the day outside their home. No explanation is coming forward as to how Kalu communicated with Narangi for getting a match for lighting bidi. Both being present in secluded place were seen by Supyar in early hours of the day. The presence of Kalu lends assurance to the argument of the learned defence counsel that Narangi was a consenting party. That being the position, it cannot be accepted that until at that point of time, use of force was in existence. Therefore, argument on behalf of the prosecution stands negated as the doctor has not supported this version as to the use of force. 14. Narangi has stated that she is not aware of her age. She was a lady of mature age being married one and carrying a pregnance. All the facts put forward in her statement show that she was a major lady who could Judge her own course. If a lady has attained the age of discretion and there are no proof about her age, and the medical evidence establishes that she is an adult lady then it cannot be accepted that her age would be the factor, which would negate the defence of consent. Therefore, it cannot be opined that she was a minor. She being major a consenting party, having gone with Kalu without telling true facts to her sister available around the day and secondly false alibi was stated to have been put to show her innocence to her sister. She herself in contradicting to the factual story demonstrates that the prosecution has not come with true version and origin. If the prosecution does not render true facts on record then that brings relief to the accused persons. 15. She herself in contradicting to the factual story demonstrates that the prosecution has not come with true version and origin. If the prosecution does not render true facts on record then that brings relief to the accused persons. 15. The prosecution case does not inspire confidence in the background of the version of the prosecutrix and as such cannot be believed. As a legal corollary thereto, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The case of the prosecution cannot be held proved by the evidence adduced on record. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its own case against the appellants. 16. In the result, two criminal appeals viz. (1) No. 653/2001 filed by appellants-Lallulal Meena & Kaluram and (2) No. 633/2001 filed by appellant- Sanwar Mal, are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 20.8.2001 passed by Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 122/1999 is set aside. All the three appellants are acquitted of the offences charged u/ss. 376(2)(g),366, 366-A & 343 IPC. They are behind the bars. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeals allowed. *******