Honble VYAS, J.–The aforesaid appeals are being decided by this common judgment as the both arise out of the same judgment dtd. 5.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar whereby he while acquitting the accused Ramji Lal for offence under Section 376(1) IPC, has convicted him for offence under Sections 354, 323 and 342 IPC. (2). Brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.2001 PW. 5 Nathu Ram lodged a typed report at the Police Station, Bhadra alleging inter alia that on 10.10.2000 at about 11.30 a.m., his daughter- in-law Smt. Maya Devi (PW.1) (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) was coming to the house. When she reached in front of house of Ramji Lal, he took the prosecutrix inside his house forcibly and closed the door from inside. He tried to commit forcible intercourse, on which the prosecutrix raised hue and cry. On raising hue and cry by the prosecutrix, the complainant threatened him to kill her by making her to drink poison. On hearing hue and cry, Banwari Lal and Saroj Devi came there. The other neighbourers also collected there and saved the prosecutrix. In this scuffle, the bangles of the prosecutrix broke. He also received abrasions in his hands. (3). On this report, a case under Sections 342, 376/511 and 323 IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. (4). Thereafter on 12.10.2000, the prosecutrix submitted another typed report stating inter alia that the accused committed forcible intercourse with her. However, due to fear of society, she did not narrate this incident to anybody. On this report, Section 376 IPC was also added. (5). After investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant for offence under Sections 376(1), 342 and 323 IPC. (6). At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and 17 documents were got exhibited. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled by the prosecution and examined himself in his defence and produced 8 documents in support of his case. (7). At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court, vide judgment and order dtd. 5.12.2001, while acquitting the accused Ramji Lal for offence under Section 376(1) IPC convicted him for offences under Sections 354, 323, and 342 IPC. (8). Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the accused Ramjilal has preferred the appeal. (7). At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court, vide judgment and order dtd. 5.12.2001, while acquitting the accused Ramji Lal for offence under Section 376(1) IPC convicted him for offences under Sections 354, 323, and 342 IPC. (8). Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the accused Ramjilal has preferred the appeal. The state has also preferred the appeal against the acquittal of accused Ramji Lal for offence under Section 376 (1) IPC. (9). In the present case it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused Ramji Lal that in the present case the prosecution has made improvements and exaggeration in the versions. In this regard, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused Ramji Lal that initially the report (Ex. P/1) was lodged by the complainant Nathu Lal in which there was no allegation of rape against the accused. At the back of the said which bears the police note, there is signature of the prosecutrix. This fact itself shows that the prosecutrix was also present at the time of lodging of the FIR. However, on the next day the prosecutrix filed another report, in which allegation of rape has been levelled. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such version. That apart, the story put forward in the second report has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has stated that on hearing hue and cry, Banwari and Saroj came there, whereas in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded by the police, the prosecutrix has stated that apart from Banwari Lal and Saroj, Gurmail also came at the spot. Even the presence of Gurmail has not been shown in the report Ex. P/1). It has also been argued on behalf of the accused that the accused was not medically examined and even the FSL report has not been produced in this case. From the medical evidence as well, it is not established that any forcible intercourse was committed by the accused. The doctor has only opined that there is possibility of rape. No definite opinion has been given by the doctor. From the medical evidence as well, it is not established that any forcible intercourse was committed by the accused. The doctor has only opined that there is possibility of rape. No definite opinion has been given by the doctor. Therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC. is disclosed in the present case. So far as evidence of Gurmail is concerned, no reliance can be placed on his statement as he has not even been named in the initial report (Ex. P/1) as well as in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and statement of prosecutrix are not corroborated by medical evidence. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even accepting the prosecution story to be true at its highest, offence if any cannot travel beyond Section 354 IPC for which he has placed reliance on the following authorities: Ankariya vs. State of M.P. (1991 Cr.L.J. 751) Basudev Naik vs. State (1991 Cr.L.J. 1594) Damodar Behera vs. State of Orissa (1996 Cr.L.J. 346) Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana (JT 2004 (2) SC 274) (10). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that learned Court below has committed serious error in acquitting the accused from the offence under Section 376 IPC. From the evidence available on record, the offence under Section 376 IPC is clearly established against the accused. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the sole statement of prosecutrix is sufficient to establish offence under Section 376 IPC. The learned counsel for the complainant also submits that the first report (Ex. P/1) has not been signed by the prosecutrix, but has been signed and lodged by Sh. Nathu Ram. However, merely on that basis acquittal of accused for offence under Section 376 IPC is not justified. Even the doctor in his statement has stated that the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused is liable to be convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the following authorities:- 1. Dev Kishan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2003 Cr.L.J. (Raj.) 1118) 2. State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. (2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 388), the accused. 3. State of M.P. vs. Dayal Sahu (2005 AIR (SCW) 4839) 4. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the following authorities:- 1. Dev Kishan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2003 Cr.L.J. (Raj.) 1118) 2. State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. (2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 388), the accused. 3. State of M.P. vs. Dayal Sahu (2005 AIR (SCW) 4839) 4. State of Rajasthan vs. Chathu Ram (1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj. 766) 5. Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (2003(2) WLC (Raj.) 194) 6. Koppula Venklat Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004(1) WLC (SC) Criminal 70) (11). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (12). In the present case, in the initial report (Ex. P./1), the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. At the back of said report which bears the police note, there is signature of the prosecutrix. This fact clearly establishes that the prosecutrix was also present at the time of lodging of the report. However, on the next day, the prosecutrix filed an application levelling allegation of rape against the accused. (13). The story of rape is falsified from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded in the trial Court. The PW.1 Smt. Maya Devi (prosecutrix) in her statement has clearly stated that she has narrated the whole story regarding rape to her mother-in-law and mother-in-law in turn informed the said story to her father-in- law, despite this the fact regarding rape has not been mentioned in the initial report lodged by the father-in-law Nathu Ram PW. 1 Smt. Maya Devi has also stated that he also signed the report which was written by his father-in-law. (14). In the cross examination also, PW.1 Smt. Maya Devi has admitted that she has narrated the whole incident of rape to her mother-in-law in the same evening and her mother-in-law informed the whole story to her father-in-law. (15). From the statement of PW.1 Smt. Maya Devi (Prosecutrix), it is apparent that she has narrated the whole story to her mother-in-law in turn informed about the incident to her father- in-law. Despite this, the fact regarding rape has not been mentioned in the initial FIR lodged by Nathu Ram (father-in-law of the prosecutrix). This throws a doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story regarding rape. However, from her statement it is clearly established that the accused appellant outraged her modesty. (16). The statement of prosecutrix (PW. Despite this, the fact regarding rape has not been mentioned in the initial FIR lodged by Nathu Ram (father-in-law of the prosecutrix). This throws a doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story regarding rape. However, from her statement it is clearly established that the accused appellant outraged her modesty. (16). The statement of prosecutrix (PW. 1 Smt. Maya Devi) are not corroborated by medical evidence PW. 2 Dr. Ram Lal Beniwal who examined the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the prosecutrix has no injury on her private parts, things. He has also stated that semen was also not found on her private parts. This witness has also not given any definite opinion regarding rape. (17). PW. 3 Saroj in her statement has stated that when he went in the house of Ramjilal, Ramjilal was sitting over waist of PW.1 Smt. Maya Devi. At that time, he caught hair of Ramji Lal and thereafter Ramji Lal ran away. (18). PW. 4 Gurmail in his statement has stated that on hearing hue and cry he also went to the house of Ramji Lal where Maya Devi and Saroj were present. On seeing him, Ramjilal ran away. He has further stated that Salwar of the prosecutrix from one leg was out and she was weeping. In the statement also, there is no allegation of rape against the accused appellant. However, from the statement of this witness, it is apparent that the accused appellant outraged modesty of the prosecutrix. (19). PW.5 Nathu Ram in the cross-examination has admittedly that his wife has narrated the whole story on 10.10.2000 in the night and on the basis of information supplied by his wife, he lodged the report (Ex. P/1) in which there is no allegation of rape. This fact also establishes that the wife of PW. 5 Nath Ram did not inform about the rape being committed by the accused appellant and informed about outraging the modesty. (20). PW. 8 Smt. Pani Devi who is mother-in-law of the prosecutrix has also stated that her daughter-in-law (prosecutrix) has informed about the rape being committed by the accused appellant and she has informed the whole story to Nathu Ram (PW. 8). However, this statement appears to be exaggerated in as much as Nathu Ram in his initial report has not mentioned this fact. If PW. 8). However, this statement appears to be exaggerated in as much as Nathu Ram in his initial report has not mentioned this fact. If PW. 8 Smt. Pani Devi would have informed Nathu Ram about the rape, the said fact would have certainly come in the initial report (Ex. P/1). (21). PW. 10 Nathmal is the investigating officer who has stated that on 11.10.2000, he recorded the statement of Maya Devi and Nathu Ram and in the said statement they did not level any allegation of rape against the accused appellant. (22). PW. 11 Banwari Lal has stated that on hearing the cry of Maya Devi, he went there, where Saroj Devi, and Gurmail were also present. He also stated that Maya Devi told that the accused appellant has outraged her modesty. Thus, in this statement also there is no allegation of rape against the accused appellant. However, this witness has also clearly stated that the accused appellant outraged modesty of Smt. Maya Devi. (23). Apart from the above, the prosecutrix in her statement (Ex. D/1) recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 11.10.2000 has also not levelled any allegation of rape against the accused. Later on she has improved her version and has levelled the allegation of rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The exaggeration and improvements in the statements of prosecutrix clearly throw a doubt on the truthfulness of story of rape. If the rape was committed by the accused, then the said fact would have certainly come in the report (Ex. P/1) lodged by the father-in-law of the prosecutrix. The story of rape clearly appears to be afterthought. That apart, there are serious contradictions in the statements of the Smt. Maya Devi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Smt. Maya Devi has stated that on hearing hue and cry, Banwari and Saroj came there, whereas in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police, the prosecutrix has stated that part from Banwari Lal and Saroj, Gurmail also came to the spot. Even the presence of Gurmail has not been shown in the report (Ex. P/1). However, from a bare reading of the evidence available on record, it is clearly established that the accused outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix. (24). Even the presence of Gurmail has not been shown in the report (Ex. P/1). However, from a bare reading of the evidence available on record, it is clearly established that the accused outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix. (24). So far as state appeal against the acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 376(1) IPC is concerned, the same has also no force. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix. The statement of prosecutrix is not corroborated by the medical evidence. From the medical evidence as well, it is not established that any forcible intercourse was committed by the accused. The doctor has only opined that there is possibility of rape. No definite opinion has been given by the doctor. Even the FSL report has not been produced in this case. That apart, from the evidence available on record, no offence under Section 376/511 IPC is made out in the present case. (25). The distinction between an attempt to commit rape and to commit indecent assault is sometimes very meagre. For the former, there should be some action on the part of the accused which would show that he is just going to have sexual connection with the prosecutrix. For an offence of an attempt to commit rape the prosecution must establish that it has gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between mere preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination. (26). In a case Damodar Behera vs. State of Orissa reported in 1996 Cr.L.J. 346 (supra), Orissa High Court has held that where a person alleged to have removed saree of the victim and ran away on seeing some persons and there was no material showing that accused was determined to have sexual intercourse in all events, the offence cannot be said to be attempt to commit rape to attract culpability under Section 376/511 IPC but the case is certainly one of indecent assault upon a woman. (27). In the present case also, from the evidence available on record, in particular statement of PW. 1 Maya Devi, PW. 2 Dr. Ram Lal Beniwal, PW. 3 Saroj, PW. 4 Gurmail, PW. 5 Nathu Ram PW. 8 Smt. Pani Devi, PW. 10 Nathmal and PW. 11 Banwari Lal. (27). In the present case also, from the evidence available on record, in particular statement of PW. 1 Maya Devi, PW. 2 Dr. Ram Lal Beniwal, PW. 3 Saroj, PW. 4 Gurmail, PW. 5 Nathu Ram PW. 8 Smt. Pani Devi, PW. 10 Nathmal and PW. 11 Banwari Lal. I find that there is no cogent evidence, to suggest that accused appellant tried to put his penis into the vagina of the prosecutrix and the only evidence is that the accused outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix and thereafter he ran away. The evidence regarding rape has been discarded in toto. (28). Apart from above, though the Code of Criminal procedure does not make any distinction between an appeal from acquittal and an appeal from conviction so far as powers of appellate Court are concerned, certain unwritten rules of adjudication have consistently been followed by judges while dealing with appeals against acquittal. No doubt, the High Court has full power to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion, whether the appeal is against conviction of acquittal, but while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court has to bear in mind, first that there is general presumption in favour of innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal. The second is every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the trial Court acquitted, he would retain that benefit in the appellate Court also. Thus, the appellate Court in appeals against acquittal has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record,that the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed. In the present case, the findings of acquittal for offence under Section 376 IPC recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and hence, the same do not required any interference by this Court. (29). In my considered opinion, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the complainant are not very much relevant to the fact of the present case. It is settled law in criminal jurisprudence that each case as to be seen on its own facts and merits. (29). In my considered opinion, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the complainant are not very much relevant to the fact of the present case. It is settled law in criminal jurisprudence that each case as to be seen on its own facts and merits. So far as the facts of the present case as discussed above are concerned, the only offence proved against the accused is for offence under Section 354 IPC. The findings recorded by the learned Court below for offence under Section 323 and 342 IPC are also based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same are affirmed. (30). The learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the case of State of M.P. vs. Dayal Sahu (supra) in which it has been held that the non-examination of the doctor who examined the prosecutrix and non-production of doctors report is not fatal to the prosecution if evidence of prosecution and other witnesses is reliable. This authority is not helpful to the learned counsel for the complainant as in the present case as discussed above, the statements of prosecutrix and other witnesses are not reliable so far as offence under Section 376 IPC is concerned. (31). The decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Chathu Ram (supra) and Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned, in the said case this Court has held that statement of prosecutrix corroborated with the medical evidence is sufficient to bring the offence under Section 376 IPC. As stated above, in this case, the statement of prosecutrix is not corroborated by the medical evidence and even the statement of prosecutrix herself are not reliable to the extent the same relates to the allegation of rape. Therefore, these authority would also not be helpful to the learned counsel for the appellant. (32). The learned counsel for the complainant has also relied on the case of Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held that leaving the prosecutrix before ejaculation in intercourse amounts to attempt to commit rape. This position has not arisen in this case as in this case, from the evidence available on record, it is established that the accused appellant has not tried to attempt to commit rape. (33). This position has not arisen in this case as in this case, from the evidence available on record, it is established that the accused appellant has not tried to attempt to commit rape. (33). For the reasons mentioned above, both the appeals filed by the accused as well as State of Rajasthan are dismissed. The judgment and order dtd. 5.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar is maintained. (34). Since the accused Ramji Lal has already undergone the sentences awarded to him, he need not surrender.