JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal at the instance of the appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.2.1999 and 26.2.1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1997 by Shri Amitav Kumar Gupta, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report lodged before Sikaripara Police Station, District Dumka on 13.3.1997 (Ext. 1) at 9.30 hours by P.W. 7 Leel Muni Soren aged about more than 45 years the informant and said to be the victim of alleged ravishment regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 10.3.1997 at 19.00 hours in a bush by the side of the village road at Sima Pahar Aamchuan half kilometer away from village Pahar Aamchua within Sikaripara P.S. District Dumka. On the basis of the written report aforesaid the case was instituted against the appellant by drawing of a formal F.I.R. (Ext.3) on that very day at 9.30 hours and the said written report and the formal F.I.R. were received on 14.3.1997 in the court empowered to take cognizance. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant was returning to her village Pahar Aamchua at 19.00 hours on 10.3.1997 from Sarasdangol Hatia and the appellant was also returning to the said village and he was behind her and when she reached near Sima Pahar Aamchua the appellant caught and overpowered her and dragged her inside the bush nearby the said road and when she attempted to raise alarms she was slapped and intimidated. It is also alleged that inspite of that she has raised alarms twice but she was assaulted. It has further been alleged that, thereafter, the appellant felled her and ravished her forcibly. It is also alleged that she was carrying oil, vegetables and fried rice from the said market with her and she has lost those articles in the said occurrence. The prosecution case further is that, thereafter, she returned to her house and narrated the incident to P.W. 6. Ramu Baski, her husband, PW.2 Shibu Baski and P.W.5 Johan Baski besides .Jai Baski and Pramanik. 4. The prosecution case further is that, thereafter, she returned to her house and narrated the incident to P.W. 6. Ramu Baski, her husband, PW.2 Shibu Baski and P.W.5 Johan Baski besides .Jai Baski and Pramanik. 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 that he has been falsely implicated in this go up case by the informant at the instance of P.W.1 Raska Baksi, the brother of the village Pradhan as there is enmity between him on the one hand and the informant as well as PW. 1 on the other hand in respect of pond and land of Karam Baski respectively. 5. The prosecution has in all examined nine witnesses to substantiate its case. PW. 7 Leel Munj Soren is the informant of this case and said to be the victim of alleged ravishment. P.W. 9, Dr. Sushma Verma is the medical witness who has examined the informant on 13.3.1997 at 15.40 hours. P.W. 8, Chandrika Prasad is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W. 6 Ramu Baski and P.W. 4. Ponesh Baski are the husband and the son respectively of the informant. P.W. 5, Johan Baski and his son P.W. 3 Gamail Baski are the agnates of the informant. P.W.1 Raska Baski is the brother of the Pradhan of the village and P.W. 2 Shibu Baski is the covillager of the informant and all these witnesses are hearsay witnesses regarding the occurrence in question and have come to know the incident from the informant. Ext. 4 is the medical report of P.W. 9. No oral and documentary evidence has been brought on the record on behalf of the defence. 6. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record the learned trial court has found the appellant guilty 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 appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and no occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. It has been submitted that the appellant P.W. 6 Ramu Baski and P.W. 5 Johan Baski are the descendants of a common ancestor and they are agnates and they have common zamabandi bearing no. It has been submitted that the appellant P.W. 6 Ramu Baski and P.W. 5 Johan Baski are the descendants of a common ancestor and they are agnates and they have common zamabandi bearing no. 12 and there is a dispute between the appellant and his father on the one hand and the informant and her husband on the other hand in respect of a pond under zamabandi no. 12 aforesaid and further Karan Baski while going to Assam has entrusted his entire land to the appellant and his father for cultivation and the village Pradhan and his brother P.W. 1 have forcibly taken possession of the said land and further all the prosecution witnesses are the camp men of P.W. 1 and they in conspiracy with each other have falsely implicated the appellant to feed fad their grudge. It has also been contended that the medical evidence on the record totally belies the prosecution case of the revishment of the informant by the appellant as alleged and the medical witness has not found any internal injury on the private part of the informant on her examination and no sperm dead or alive was also found. It has further been contended that the road which runs to the said Hatia to the village of the• informant is a busy road and there were a large number of persons of the village of the informant in the said Hatia and the place of occurrence as per the testimony of the I.O. is adjacent the road which makes the said place of occurrence highly improbable as a place of occurrence and besides that the informant in her evidence has stated that she was dragged about 200 yards from the road to her own field under Jamabandi no. 12 where the occurrence has taken place and it thus belies the alleged place of occurrence. It has also been contended that the I.O. has not found at the place of occurrence the vegetables, oil and the fried rice which were been carried by the informant from the said Hatia at the time of the occurrence in question and this aspect of the matter makes the prosecution case more suspicious. It has also further been contended that the extra Judicial confession as deposed by P.Ws. It has also further been contended that the extra Judicial confession as deposed by P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and 5 suffers from legal infirmity as a result of threat and pressure at the instance of P.W.1 and the fact of threat for eliciting confession of the appellant stands admitted by P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 in their evidence and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said extra judicial confession and furthermore the learned court below did not bring the said evidence regarding extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to his notice calling for an explanation in respect thereof in course of the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lastly it has been contended that there has been an inordinate delay in lodging the case before the Sikaripara P.S. and no explanation in respect thereof is forthcoming and the false story of Panchayati has been set up and in the facts and circumstances of this case the written report of the informant is the result of afterthought cool consideration and consultation and it is nothing but an embellishment to falsely implicate the appellant. It has also been contended that the learned court below did not at all consider the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and thus the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 8. The learned A.P.P. has very fairly submitted that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution regarding the ravishment of the informant by the accused but there are several lineal abrasions on the back of the person of the informant which lend support to the fact that the appellant has overpowered her and brought her inside the bush and has committed the occurrence and the I.O. has also found trampling marks at the place of occurrence and thus the impugned judgment cannot be said to be illegal. 9. The following facts emerge as admitted facts as per the evidence on the record. P.W 6 Ramu Baski, the husband of the informant and Shibu Baski the father of the appellant and P.W 5 Johan Baski, the father of P.W 3 are the descendants of a common ancestor and zamabandi no. 12 of village Pahar Aamchua stands jointly recorded in their names and as such P.Ws. P.W 6 Ramu Baski, the husband of the informant and Shibu Baski the father of the appellant and P.W 5 Johan Baski, the father of P.W 3 are the descendants of a common ancestor and zamabandi no. 12 of village Pahar Aamchua stands jointly recorded in their names and as such P.Ws. 6,5,3 and 4 are the agnates of the appellant. There is a dispute between the appellant on the one hand and the informant and her husband P.W 6 on the other hand in respect of a pond under zamabandi no. 12 and they are at daggers drawn. P.W 1, Raska Baski the brother of the village Pradhan is also inimical to the appellant and his brother has forcibly possessed the land of Karan Baski which was entrusted to the father of the appellant for cultivation while he was going to Assam. P.Ws. 6,2,5,3 and 4 are campmen of P.W. 1 and the appellant and his father had opposed the brother of P.W. 1 for being appoint as village Pradhan. In the background of the aforesaid admitted facts let us now scan and scrutinize the evidence on the record. P.W.7 has deposed that while returning from Sarasdangol Hatia to her village when she reached near Sima Pahar Aamchua the appellant came from behind and caught and overpowered her and dragged her in the bush adjacent road where she was felled and ravished by the appellant. There is no evidence on the record by any independent natural or competent witness to substantiate the fact that the informant has ever visited the said Hatia and she was returning from there to her village. This fact finds support in view of the objective finding of the I.O. that he has not found any vegetable or oil or fried rice etc. which the informant is said to have purchased in the said Hatia which she was carrying to her house. This aspect of the matter, therefore, puts a question mark to the very authenticity of the genesis of the prosecution case. The objective finding of the trampling mark as stated by the I.O. in the absence of the recovery of the aforesaid articles, therefore, lacks credence. This aspect of the matter, therefore, puts a question mark to the very authenticity of the genesis of the prosecution case. The objective finding of the trampling mark as stated by the I.O. in the absence of the recovery of the aforesaid articles, therefore, lacks credence. As per the evidence of P.W. 7, the informant she has been caught, overpowered, thereafter dragged in the bush and when she raised alarms she was slapped and, thereafter, she was felled on the ground and ravished and in the course of the occurrence she was resisting. From this evidence it appears that she was allowed to go from the said bush to her house by the appellant when the appellant has definitely satisfied his lust. P.W. 9, the medical witness has not found any internal injury on the private part of the informant. The medical witness has also not found any sperm, dead or alive in the vaginal swab on its microscopic examination. There is also total absence of other injuries such as love bites or nail marks on the person of the informant. Therefore, the medical witness has rightly come to the opinion that no definite finding of the informant being ravished can be given in this case. In view of medical evidence itself the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code falls flat. Furthermore the informant has deposed that she has shown her blood stained cloth to the I.O. at the police station but the I.O. in his evidence does not whisper in respect thereof. P.W. 7 in para 26 of her evidence has deposed that she had gone to the house of the appellant at about 10.00 o'clock in the night to get back her aforesaid articles which she was carrying from the market and the appellant had told her that he does not know about her aforesaid articles. She has further deposed that the mother of the appellant told her that the appellant has not taken her articles. This evidence of the informant negates the question of her ravishment. Her evidence appearing in para 27 is equally relevant in which she has stated that the place where she has been ravished is about 200 yards away from tl1e said village road and the said place of occurrence is the zamabandl land of the parties. This evidence of the informant negates the question of her ravishment. Her evidence appearing in para 27 is equally relevant in which she has stated that the place where she has been ravished is about 200 yards away from tl1e said village road and the said place of occurrence is the zamabandl land of the parties. She has further deposed that the appellant has dragged her to some distance and, thereafter, the appellant took her in his lap and brought her to the place of occurrence. The I.O. has found the trampling mark in the bush adjacent the road and not at a place 200 yards away from the said road which is the zamabandl land of the parties to this case where the occurrence is said to have taken place as per the testimony of the informant herself. This evidence, therefore, create reasonable doubts regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case of the ravishment of the informant in the manner as alleged. The evidence referred to above of the informant, therefore, casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the warp and woof of the prosecution case. And last but not the least, the extra judicial confession of the appellant as deposed by all the hearsay witnesses referred to above suffers from legal infirmity as the said extra judicial confession has been resulted due to the threat and inducement at the instance of P.W. 1, the informant and furthermore the learned court below did not bring it to the notice of the appellant regarding the said extra judicial confession when his statement was being recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the said extra judicial confession cannot form the basis of the' conviction of the appellant and the learned court below has wrongly and erroneously acted on the said extra judicial confession in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant. Lastly there has been an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the case against the appellant regarding the occurrence in question and in the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be ruled out that the said written report of the informant is the result of afterthought consultation and deliberation with a view to falsely implicate the appellant in view of the admitted enmity which was still existing and alive between the parties on the day of the occurrence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is well founded and is equally supported by the materials on the record. The learned court below has not considered the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 10. There is merit in the 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 of the charge levelled against him and he is, accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liability of the bail bond.