JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 13/06/1997, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions-Trial No. 153 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Sessions 109, 120B and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of 5 years. 2. The prosecution story in short is that two girls namely, Nutan Bading @ Kandulna and Phuleshwari Devi had gone to the forest for picking up "Datuwari". It is said that the girl Nutan was brought to the Police Station by this appellant by assaulting her and she was made to sit in the Police Station. Subsequently, Phuleshwari Devi, i.e. the informant was also brought to the Police Station by the Night Guard (Chaukidar). There at the Police Station the Sub-Inspector of Police, i.e. Jawahar Singh (since dead) touched every part of the body of Phuleshwari Devi and also kissed her. Thereafter, he took her in another room and then committed rape upon her. The girl Nutan Bading @ Kandulna was also raped by the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Station. It is further alleged that the appellant, who was the Jamadar at that time, went to the house of the informant in the night and threatened her not to disclose about the occurrence to anyone. It appears that though the alleged occurrence took place on 29/11/1983 but the information was lodged to the Police on 08/12/1983, i.e. after considerable delay. 3. In course of trial after examination of only one prosecution witness, the main accused Jawahar Singh, i.e. the Officer-in-Charge, against who the allegation of commission of rape was made, died and, therefore, the case was dropped against him. 4. By the impugned judgment, the present appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 376 IPC by the trial court but he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 109, 120B and 342 of the Indian Penal Code as stated earlier. 5. In order to establish the charges altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 is the Chaukidar Mazzu, who is said to have brought the informant Phuleshwar Devi to the Police Station. 5. In order to establish the charges altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 is the Chaukidar Mazzu, who is said to have brought the informant Phuleshwar Devi to the Police Station. PW-2 is Nutan Bading @ Kandulna is the lady, who was firstly brought to the Police Station where the Officer-in-Charge committed rape on her. PW-3 is Lalmuni Devi, the mother of PW-2 Nutan Bading. PW-4 was tendered. PW-5 is Phuleshwar Devi, i.e. the informant and PW-6 is a formal witness. 6. From the impugned judgment I find that the learned trial court has held that so far as Section 376 IPC was concerned the same was not applicable against the appellant because there was no allegation against him for having committed rape on any of the victim girls. The learned trial court has however, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 109, 120B and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. for criminal conspiracy and for instigating the main accused for committing rape upon Phuleshwari Devi. 7. As noticed above that though the occurrence took place on 29/11/1983 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 08/12/1983 and this inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not at all been explained by the prosecution, which creates reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. 8. It appears that the star witnesses for the prosecution were PW-2 and PW-5, i.e. Nutan Bading and the informant Phuleshwar Devi. I have carefully gone through the evidence of both the witnesses and I find that whatever allegations have been made by them it was only against the Officer-in-Charge Jawahar Singh regarding commission of rape. No allegations whatsoever has been made by those two witnesses against the present appellant to the effect that he conspired with the main accused, i.e. the Officer-in-charge in commission of the alleged offence or that he instigated him for committing rape on the victim girls. Therefore, I find that there is no evidence at all against the present appellant for holding him guilty for any offence. 9. Therefore, I find that there is no evidence at all against the present appellant for holding him guilty for any offence. 9. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the learned trial court has committed grave error both on facts and in law in holding the present appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 109, 120B and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in law. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial court is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.