JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. Both the appeals arising of the same judgment of conviction, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants of both the appeals have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2002 and 13.8.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court No. 2, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellant, namely. Kameshwar Yadav of Cr. Appeal No. 493 of 2002 has been convicted under Sections 376/511/109 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and 6 months and fine of Rs. 300/- in default of fine further R.I. for one month and the appellant, namely, Gango Bhokta of Cr. Appeal No. 510 of 2002 has been convicted under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of fine further R.I. for one month. 3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are Uat in the evening of 3rd November, 2001 the informant PW 7 Sabita Devi wife of K ashal Thakur has gone to ease herself at nearby Joria of village Bhogtadih P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar. Further stated when she was returning, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 510 of 2002, Gango Bhokta tried to lure her for sexual intercourse showing a Rs. 100/- currency note. As alleged when she refused the appellant. Gango Bhokta forcibly tried to out raise her modesty and commit rape by raising her cloths. However, she could manage to free herself and ran back to her house where she informed the house inmates about the occurrence. According to the informant when her family members went to protest against the highhanded activities of appellant Gango Bhokta, the appellant Kameshwar Yadav taking his side threatened them that she will be subjected to rape. The village panchayat was called but the appellants did not participate. Thereafter police was informed. 4. The statement of the informant vide Ext. 1 has been registered on 15.11.2000 as Jasidih P.S. Case No. 196 of 2000 after which police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants under Sections 376/511/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The village panchayat was called but the appellants did not participate. Thereafter police was informed. 4. The statement of the informant vide Ext. 1 has been registered on 15.11.2000 as Jasidih P.S. Case No. 196 of 2000 after which police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants under Sections 376/511/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial of the appellants was committed to the Court of sessions where they were charged under Sections 376/511 separately and under Sections 376/511/109 jointly. 5. The present appeals have been preferred separately by both of them on the grounds that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the defence properly. It has further stated that vital contradictions in the deposition of the witnessed examined makes the whole prosecution case doubtful and improbable. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri K.P.S. Deo, the lodging of FIR after 12 days itself creates grave doubt on the genuineness of the allegation. It is also submitted that though the police has suppressed the earlier version, the trail Court has filed to consider the admitted fact that informant earlier has given a different version. It is also submitted that in absence of any probable and eye-witness of the occurrence the whole prosecution case deserves to be disbelieved. 6. The learned APP supports the conviction of the appellants. 7. I have gone through the materials on record along with the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. This is a case in which the informant Sabita Devi has alleged appellant Gango Bhokta to have tried to lure her for a sexual relationship firstly offering some money and then forcibly. Admittedly there is no eye-witness but the house inmates were informed about the occurrence immediately. These hear say witness examined by the prosecution as PW 1 Tej Narayan Thakur and PW 2 Thano Thakur are Dever of the victim, PW 3 Yasoda Devi mother-in-law of the victim and PW 4 Kaushal Thakur her husband have supported the informant PW 7 to this extent that she informed them regarding the incident in the evening. However, they have admitted during cross-examination that as per village relationship the Informant was Bhabhi or daughter-in-law of the appellants. It is further admitted that the house of both the appellants was situated in the vicinity of the house of the informant. However, they have admitted during cross-examination that as per village relationship the Informant was Bhabhi or daughter-in-law of the appellants. It is further admitted that the house of both the appellants was situated in the vicinity of the house of the informant. According to PW 1 they went to police station in the evening of the occurrence and fard beyan was recorded in their presence. PW 2 similarly admitted that on the date of occurrence he has gone out of village to another village and returned late in the night. This witness has admitted in para 3 that appellant Gango Bhokta was showing money and asking the informant to come for sexual relation. PW 3 mother-in-law similarly admitted during cross-examination that the appellant Gango Bhokta was showing the money from distance. She further admitted that a dispute was continuing for last 5-6 years with the appellants for land. PW 4 admitted during cross-examination that the case was registered on 14th or 15th November, 2000 in his presence at the police station. It is further admitted that on 14th November, a written report was submitted to police on the basis of which case was registered on 15th November, 2000. He also admitted In cross-examination that the appellant Gango Bhokta was showing the money from 500 yards. PW 5 have been declared hostile. PW 6 is another hear say witness. 8. The informant PW 7 supported her statement before the police but she admitted that in spite of her written information police had come on 14th or 15th November, 2000 to enquire regarding the allegations. She admitted in cross-examination that the panchayati was not made in writing. She further admits in para 3 that the first application given to police did not contain all facts thereafter she gave written application before the Court. She has further admitted that the Joriya was situated at about 100 yards from her house and the entire road to the Joriya passes through kitchen gardens, school etc on both sides. She further admits in cross-examination vide para 8 that she started raising alarm for 10-15 minutes but none came and thereafter she was subjected to force. She has failed to say in which arm she has bitten the appellant Gango Bhokta. She further admits in cross-examination vide para 8 that she started raising alarm for 10-15 minutes but none came and thereafter she was subjected to force. She has failed to say in which arm she has bitten the appellant Gango Bhokta. PW 8 is the I.O. of this case: he has been cross-examined at length where he admitted that he has not examined any panches or villagers participating in the panchayatt He further admitted that no cloths were handed over to him and contradicted the informant regarding handing over of the cloths by the informant. 9. The learned Counsel stressed before me that the delay in lodging of the FIR of 12 days along with the contradictory statement of the informant as well as her in-laws shows that the appellants were implicated falsely. It is further submitted that even if the prosecution version is believed the only allegation against the appellants Kameshwar Yadav is that he took side of appellant Gango Bhokta and threatened the informant and her family members for which he does not deserves to be convicted under Sections 376/511/109 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention has got force in it. The appellant Kameshwar Yadav only alleged to have threatened the informant and her family members when they went to protest. I do not find that his conviction can be maintained and Cr. Appeal No. 493 of 2002 got merit in it and deserves to be allowed. 10. So far the conviction of the appellant Gango Bhokta is concerned, I find that the allegation against him that he tried to lure the informant for sexual relationship showing currency note is the only fact which could be proved by the informant in her evidence. The informant has further alleged that she was subjected to force at the time of occurrence for which she raised alarm for 10-15 minutes but none came. She has further asserted that during scuffle her Sari and Peticote were torn which was produced before police but I.O. contradicted her version. Apparently it is an exaggeration and is not supported by any matrial on records. The story further appears improbable, if she was raising alarm for 15 minutes and her house is situated hardly 100 yards from the P.O., the house inmates or nearby house inmates must have came out and saw the occurrence. Apparently it is an exaggeration and is not supported by any matrial on records. The story further appears improbable, if she was raising alarm for 15 minutes and her house is situated hardly 100 yards from the P.O., the house inmates or nearby house inmates must have came out and saw the occurrence. It has also come on record that there was some dispute regarding land between the informant family and appellant Gango Bhokta. There is no medical report supporting the prosecution story specially when she was thrashed on grounds and tried to be raped. 11. Having regards to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant Gango Bhokta has attempted to commit rape on "the informant in the manner alleged. As such, I find and hold that the Cr. A. No. 510 of 2002 has got merit in it and deserves to be allowed. 12. In the result, both the appeals i.e. Cr. A. No. 493 of 2002 and Cr. A. No. 510 of 2002 are allowed. The conviction of both the appellants are hereby set aside. Both the appellants are on bail, they are released from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.