A. K. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) APPLICANTS/complainant has filed the revision against the judgment dated 8-10-2004 in S. T. No. 85/2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, Barwaha, District Khargone against the acquittal of the respondent accused No. 1 to 5 in the case filed by respondent No. 6 state of Madhya Pradesh. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 23-10-2001 the prosecutrix Rekha aged about 18 years went to the house of her friend viz. Meenakshi where accused Sajid, Rupesh and Manoj forcibly committed the sexual intercourse with her. That on the next day on 30-10-2001 accused Goresh requested accused Kavita to persuade prosecutrix Rekha to allow him to have the sexual relationship with Rekha. That accused Kavita thereafter asked prosecutrix Rekha that she was raped yesterday and now she should allow accused goresh to commit the sexual intercourse. That out of indignation Rekha consumed sulphas tablet. That she was shifted to the hospital where she has narrated the incident to her parents Trilokchand (P. W. 11)and Sushilabai (P. W. 12) and also to her brother Mahesh and Balkrishna. Rekha succumbed to the injuries on 2-11-2001 and autopsy was conducted in M. Y. Hospital indore and it was opined that she has died on account of taking the sulphas tablet. The post-mortem report of Dr. B. P. Bajpai (P. W. 6) is Ex. P/12. Thereafter the case was registered against the accused persons and during the investigation, the statement of the witnesses was recorded and the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence of committing the gang rape and also under Section 306 of the IPC. ( 3 ) THE accused have abjured the guilt and denied the statement of prosecution witnesses and pleaded false implication. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Court has framed the charges under Section 376 (2) (g) of the ipc against accused Sajid, Manoj, Rupesh and Goresh and accused Kavita was charged for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) r/w section 109 of the IPC. That the charges under Section 306 were also framed against all the accused. After recording the evidence the learned Trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons. That the charges under Section 306 were also framed against all the accused. After recording the evidence the learned Trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons. ( 5 ) THE brother of deceased applicant mahesh has preferred this revision on the ground that the oral dying declaration given by Rekha to her parents and others were wrongly rejected by the Court and the Court has not properly assessed and evaluated the evidence and erred in acquitting the accused. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY this case is not based on the testimony of any eye-witness who has seen the offence of rape or abetment by the accused to commit the suicide. The entire case hinges on the oral dying declaration given by Rekha. Mahesh (P. W. 4) brother of rekha, Trilokchand (P. W. 11), Sushilabai (P. W. 16), her parents, and Balkrishna (P. W. 16)have stated that when they went to the hospital to see Rekha, she narrated to them that the forcible sexual intercourse was committed with her by accused Sajid, Manoj and rupesh and on the next day 31-10-2001 accused Kavita persuaded her to allow accused Goresh to have the sexual relationship with her (Rekha ). That on account of the humiliation and the indignation she has consumed the tablet of Sulphas. This oral dying declaration is doubtful for the following reasons. ( 7 ) THE statement of Rekha was recorded by the Investigation Officer and in her statement Ex. D/2 she has not stated a single word against any of the accused. Prosecutrix Rekha has not lodged any report against the accused persons of committing the gang rape with her. Even the close relative i. e. Mahesh (P. W. 4), Trilokchand (P. W. 11) and sushilabai (P. W. 12) immediately or before death of Rekha have not lodged any report that Rekha had disclosed about the commission of the rape with her by the accused persons. No explanation is given that why the report to the Police was not iodged before the death of prosecutrix Rekha either by her close relatives or by Rekha herself. From the evidence of Dr. B. P. Bajpai (P. W. 6) it is clear, that in the autopsy no injury whatsoever was found on the body or the private part of the prosecutrix. From the evidence of Dr. B. P. Bajpai (P. W. 6) it is clear, that in the autopsy no injury whatsoever was found on the body or the private part of the prosecutrix. It is not natural that an unmarried girl even after the gang rape by three persons will not receive any mark of injury. The learned trial Court has discussed the omissions and contradictions in the statement of Mahesh (P. W. 4)Trilokchand (P. W. 11), Sushilabai (P. W. 12)and Balkrishna (P. W. 16) and observed that in view of the glaring contradictions in their statement with their police statement under section 161, their testimony is not reliable. Consequently, on account of the statement of the deceased Ex. D/2 and on account of the absence of the report either by rekha or her close relatives to the Police and due to the contradictions in the statement of the witnesses examined to prove the oral dying declaration, the finding of the learned trial Court that the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, is well merited and deserves to be confirmed. The revision is devoid of substance and it is, hereby, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .