JUDGMENT :- The Accused was charged for committing rape on a woman who was seven months pregnant, under Section 376(2)(e) of Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 456, Indian Penal Code, for house breaking in the night and has been convicted and sentenced. 2. The accused is said to have been waiting in front of rear gate of house of complainant, when she was the only adult in house, her children in house were infants. Mukesh, the son of complainant's neighbour, was also in the house. 3. According to the complainant, the accused forcibly entered the house when in the midnight, the prosecutrix had opened the rear door for going out for easing. He then committed rape, caused fun penetration of penis, discharged the semen, left her and went away. In the course of resistance, the glass bangles of complainant got broken and she suffered minor injuries. 4. According to the complainant, she could not shout, because when she was about to do it, the accused had closed her mouth by his hand. 5. According to the complainant, after the accused completed his misdeed, she kept weeping and crying till the morning. She then reported the matter to neighbours. According to her, PW-2 Mukesh got awake and reported the crying of prosecutrix to his mother. 6. It is seen that the complainant was medically examined. The clothes on the person of the complainant, namely petticoat, saree, blouse, as well as the clothes on the person of accused were sent for chemical analysis. 7. Though the complainant claimed that during the sexual intercourse by the rape, upon completing penetration of the penis, the accused had discharged the semen, the Chemical Analyser's Report (Exh.11) reveals no semen or spermatozoa on any of the articles referred for analysis and opinion. 8. Prosecution has not brought medical evidence to prove the sexual intercourse being by way of rape or marks of resistance on the person of the complainant, so as to prove that prosecutrix was sexually assaulted. 9. The prosecution has examined, in support of the charge, the Complainant and Mukesh as main witnesses, apart from this evidence, no other evidence including medical evidence has been brought forward. 10. In so far as evidence of PW-1 is concerned, she is the solitary witness according to the story narrated by her. She does not name anyone as witness of incidence. 11. 10. In so far as evidence of PW-1 is concerned, she is the solitary witness according to the story narrated by her. She does not name anyone as witness of incidence. 11. Evidence of PW-2 - Mukesh does hot render any help to the prosecution, since all that he has stated reads as follows :"The accused Was residing in front of that complainant's house. On the night of incident I had gone to sleep in the house of complainant at about 7 p.m. Complainant had told to my mother that she is fearing and hence requested me to sleep in their house. I have personally heard that. When we slept in her house we were only myself, the, complainant and her children. I do not remember how many children were there. I do not remember whether complainant was sitting or weeping when I had woken up. Then I got up and came back to my home. I had gone about 7 a.m., at my home. (APP requested for putting leading question. The learned defence counsel objected. However considering the circumstances and in the interest of justice, in view of Section 142 of Cr.P.C. I hereby permit APP to put some leading questions in respect of introductory matters only for the purpose of remembering the incident, but not by way of cross-examination. Sd/- S. S. Wagh [S.S. Wagh] 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 2. It did not happen that I called my mother on finding the complainant weeping. I do not know that the my mother came to the house of the complainant. After my going to home. "[quoted from paras 1 and 2 at pages 58 and 59 of the paper-book]. 12. The only witness now to be considered is the complainant - PW -1. 13. On perusal of her evidence, it is seen that she has narrated the story as to how the accused entered the house, committed rape etc. Her deposition, in relation to the incident and the details of inmates in the house as contained in Para 2 of her deposition, reads as follows :"Then we i.e., myself, that boy and my 2 children slept in our house at about 9.30 P.M. My elder son was 6 years of age at that time and daughter was about 3 years of age. We all were sleeping in the front room. We all were sleeping in the front room. At about 1 or 1.30 A.M. in that night I got up for easing. Through the middle door I went in kitchen. Then I opened the kitchen door by removing chain from inside. I was about to go to Bathroom. But at the same time accused who was already there caught hold of my hand. I saw him after he had held my hand. I did not see him before that. I saw him in the electric light of my kitchen. I again say that I saw him immediately on opening the door. I immediately tried to shout but the accused suddenly shut my mouth with his hand. He took me inside my kitchen. I tried to rescue myself. In that scuffle my 2 or 3 bangles broke my blouse also was torn. The accused made me flat on the ground. My Mangalsutra broke. The Mangalsutra was having black glass bids and 8 gold bids. All bids spread over and accused committed rape on me. The accused committed rape on me in my kitchen. Later on I got 6 gold bids in my kitchen but 2 were lost. As I was pregnant at that time I had not more the nicker. I was wearing only sari, petticoat and blouse. The accused then lifted up my sari and petticoat and did the intercourse with me. He was sleeping on my body. He had made me in supine position and he was in crone position on me. Accused was wearing only a Lungi and Manila of checks. The Lungi was of green colour. The accused penetrated his organ in my vagina. He also discharged semen in my vagina. Thereafter ran away from the front door. Thereafter I wept for much time. I was weeping loudly. My children got up on hearing my cries. And the boy of neighbour then went to his mother. I was weeping for a long time. The boy got up at about 4 A.M. and went to his mother and told her that I am weeping. Then mother of that boy came to me. She saw the cut Mangalsutra and bangle pieces and asked to me as to what happened. I told her that accused raped me." [quoted from para 2 at pages 45, 46 and 47 of the paper-book]. 14. Then mother of that boy came to me. She saw the cut Mangalsutra and bangle pieces and asked to me as to what happened. I told her that accused raped me." [quoted from para 2 at pages 45, 46 and 47 of the paper-book]. 14. The story narrated by the prosecutrix, namely :[a] act of total penetration and discharge of semen, and [b] that Mukesh [PW-2] got up due to the sound of crying/weeping, saw her weeping, called his mother, is unfortunately rendered uncorroborated. 15. Apart that, the evidence of PW-1 is uncorroborated, the testimony of prosecutrix is contradicted by PW-2 - Mukesh, who, according to the prosecutrix, was sleeping in her house at the time of incident. Failing to corroborate and contradict are two altogether different aspects, former leaves the case weak, while latter destroys it. In the present case, latter has occurred and whether or not that the prosecutrix is shown belied, at least worth of her testimony has been impeached. 16. In this background, the learned Trial Judge had recorded a finding that the accused had committed the offence. 17. The finding that on the evidence of the prosecution, rape is proved, thus; suffers from the defect of failure of considering effect of entire evidence on record and, in specific, the contradictions. Finding, thus, calls for interference. 18. Appeal is liable to be allowed. It is allowed. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appeal allowed.