Judgment Ghanshyam Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3. West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1991. Both appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Sadhu Musahar has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year under Sec. 341, IPC and R.I. for one year under Sec. 323, IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.1.1990 at 7.00 p.m. the informant, who is prosecutrix, Vidya Devi (PW 2) had gone to fetch water from well situated in the village. While she was returning after fetching water and reached near the house of accused appellants, appellant Sadhu Musahar all of sudden caught her from behind, lifted her and brought her in his house. Appellant Sadhu Musahar called his brother appellant Sampat Musahar and thereafter they lied her on the floor. Appellant Sampat Musahar caught her both hand and appellant Sadhu Musahar after assaulting her on chest with his knee committed rape upon her. Thereafter she returned weeping to her house. After some time her husband Ram Chandra Paswan (PW 3) returned and then he (PW 3) disclosed that on hearing her cry he went to Sheela Singh and complained against the appellants but he did not listen. 3. On that very night due to delay they did not go to police station. Next morning, Sheela Singh and Munshi Kharaglal came to them and assured to settle the matter through panchayat but no justice was done in panchayati and thereafter, on 12.1.1990 the victim and her husband came to Govardhana P.S. where the police registered the case against the appellants on fardbeyan lodged by the prosecutrix, Vidya Devi. 4. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses including prosecutrix PW 2 Vidya Devi, her husband, PW 3 Ram Chandra Paswan, PW 5 Dr. Usha Devi and I.O. PW 6 Uma Shankar Prasad. Other witnesses are PW 1 Tulsi Paswan and PW 4 Pashupati Paswan. 5. Defence is total denial of the occurrence. 4. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses including prosecutrix PW 2 Vidya Devi, her husband, PW 3 Ram Chandra Paswan, PW 5 Dr. Usha Devi and I.O. PW 6 Uma Shankar Prasad. Other witnesses are PW 1 Tulsi Paswan and PW 4 Pashupati Paswan. 5. Defence is total denial of the occurrence. According to the appellants they have been falsely implicated in this case in order to pressurise them to pay the alleged due of the shop of the informant. In support of their defence they have examined one witness who is DW 1 Nagina Mahto. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the judgment in question both in law as well as on facts. He has submitted that the learned lower Court has not properly appreciated the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. He ought to have disbelieved the evidence of prosecutrix PW 2 which is full of improbabilities and inconsistencies. It has further been submitted that prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the case which cuts the very root of the prosecution story. 7. The settled principle is that in rape case conviction can be recorded mere on sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it inspires confidence and does not suffer from any basic infirmities. In that case, the Court has compulsion to look for corroboration from any other corner. Now let us examine the evidence of prosecutrix in order to find out as to whether even on its face value the story of prosecution is fit to be accepted. 8. PW 2 Vidya Devi (prosecutrix) was a married lady and had two children aged about seven year and five years. The appellants were also married and had children. According to prosecution story as mentioned in fardbeyan lodged by the prosecutrix the occurrence took place at 7.00 p.m. while she was returning to her house after fetching water from well the appellant Sadhu Musahar caught hold her from behind, lifted her and brought her in his house where she was raped. PW 2 is her examination-in-chief has supported her case. However, from cross-examination, paragraphs 7 and 8, it appears that the appellant Sadhu Musahar caught hold the prosecutrix near the well and thereafter, he brought her in his house. PW 2 is her examination-in-chief has supported her case. However, from cross-examination, paragraphs 7 and 8, it appears that the appellant Sadhu Musahar caught hold the prosecutrix near the well and thereafter, he brought her in his house. It further appears from above paragraphs that there were several house near the well including that of Basudeo and Giri Raj Musahar. This fact has also been supported by her husband PW 3 in his evidence. According to PW 4 vide paragraph 4 the house of Sadhu Musahar was towards east of the well intervened by 5-8 houses. According to the prosecutrix vide paragraph 10 she raised hulla upon which her husband came but surprisingly he did not protest nor attempted to set her free from clutches of appellant Sadhu Musahar who was at that time alone. This statement is also contrary to her earlier statement given in paragraph 3 of her evidence in which she has stated that on that night her husband was away at Bagaha. It also appears to be improbable and absurd that Sadhu Musahar brought the prosecutrix to his house after crossing houses of 5-7 persons but none of them came to rescue her inspite of hulla raised by her. Not a single person of the locality has come to support the prosecution story. On very fact to it, the story of prosecution appears to be absurd. 9. There is another aspect, paragraph 11 of her evidence shows that both the appellants who are full brother were married and had families including children and wives. They were residing in one and the same house. Paragraph 12 of her evidence shows that their sister came and protested but inspite of that the incident of rape was committed. In other words, rape was committed by the appellants in presence of their family members including sister. I may pause here for a moment and ask question to myself as to whether a crime like rape can be committed by a person in presence of his own sister and wife inspite of their protest. There is another absurdity in the prosecution story. In paragraphs 13 and 14, this witness has stated that the commission of illegal act was continued for one hour but no one even family members of accused came to rescue the prosecutrix. There is another absurdity in the prosecution story. In paragraphs 13 and 14, this witness has stated that the commission of illegal act was continued for one hour but no one even family members of accused came to rescue the prosecutrix. It is not a case of prosecution that the family members of the appellants were also in collusion with the appellants. 10. The husband of the prosecutrix PW 3 makes the story more doubtful. The cross-examination paragraph 7 of this witness goes to show that at 7.00 p.m. he was with his wife but no crime was committed in her presence. Paragraph 2 of his evidence coupled with fardbeyan goes to show that on hearing hulla raised by his wife he did not come to rescue to his wife but went to the house of one Sheela Singh. This story appears to be quite improbable and absurd. 11. PW 1 Tulsi Paswan has come to say that a panchayati was held in which both Vidya Devi and Sadhu Musahar were present. Sadhu Musahar confessed his guilt in panchayati. However, this fact has not been supported by Vidya Devi herself She has not uttered even a word regarding holding panchayati or confession made by the appellants in panchayati. PW 3. husband of the prosecutrix, has also supported the fact of panchayati as stated by PW 1. In paragraph 2 of his deposition, this witness has uttered name of some punches who were present in panchayati. However not a single person named in paragraph 2 came before the Court to support the fact of panchayati. 12. PW 4 Pashupati Nath Paswan has stated in his evidence that prosecutrix complained to him about commission of illegal act by Sadhu Musahar alone. He has not stated anything against the other appellant Sampat Musahar. Cross-examination paragraph 3 goes to show that at the time of disclosure several persons of the locality assembled but not a single person has come except this witness to say that victim disclosed about the occurrence just after the incident. Paragraph 5 of crossexamination of this witness contradicts the evidence of prosecutrixmade in paragraph 13 of the evidence. In paragraph 13, she has stated that her clothes were torn and were also stained with blood but this witness i.e. PW 4 has not supported this fact who claimed to arrive at the spot just after occurrence. 13. Paragraph 5 of crossexamination of this witness contradicts the evidence of prosecutrixmade in paragraph 13 of the evidence. In paragraph 13, she has stated that her clothes were torn and were also stained with blood but this witness i.e. PW 4 has not supported this fact who claimed to arrive at the spot just after occurrence. 13. PW 5 is lady doctor Usha Devi who examined the prosecutrix on 13.1.1990. According to her evidence, vide paragraph 6 no definite opinion could be given about commission of rape. Therefore, the evidence of doctor is of no help to the prosecution. 14. PW 6 is the I.O. of the case. He starts with wrong assertion. According to him, the fardbeyan was lodged on 9.1.1990 which is apparently false. The fardbeyan Ext. 2 goes to show that it was lodged on 12.1.1990. If fardbeyan was lodged on 9.1.1990, the same has not been brought on the record which cuts the very root of the prosecution story. Paragraph 6 of his cross examination goes to show that he did not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix. 15. So far defence story is concerned. PW 3 the husband of the victim has admitted in his examinationin- chief, paragraph 4, that he has shop and there was dispute with the appellants for not supplying articles to them on credit. DW 1 has been examined on behalf of the defence who has come to say that Ram Chandra Paswan had a Kirana shop from which the appellants used to purchase articles. There was dispute between them with regard to payment of price of articles purchased from the shop of Ram Chandra Paswan. 16. Thus, on careful consideration of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the story of prosecution is not probable and the prosecution has completely failed to prove its story beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Apparently, the conviction recorded by the Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law is fit to be set aside. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment in question is hereby set aside. The appellants are in jail. They are directed to be set at liberty if not warranted in any other case.