JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. 1. The sole appellant, Arun Kumar Mahatha was put on trial for the charges that he by entering into the house of the informant, Madhuri Kumari (P.W. 4) committed rape on her. Learned Sessions Judge having found the appellant guilty convicted him under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to undergo R.I. for further period of 15 days. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24-1-1996 one Madhuri Kumari, daughter of Arun Bouri (P.W. 5) while she was alone in her house the appellant entered into her house at 12 noon and asked her to have sex with him, to which she denied and upon it the appellant put her down on the ground and tore her underpant and forcibly com mitted rape on her by gagging her mouth with gamachha and in that course when she tried to resist, the appellant assaulted her with danda. 3. The said Madhuri Kumari gave her fardbeyan (Ext.6) on 24-6-96 at 5:15 p.m. Upon it the case was registered and tin; matter was taken up for investigation. 4. During investigation, Madhuri Kumari was forwarded for medical examination before Dr. Mrs. Lila Rani(P.W. 1), who on examining, assessed her age as 14 years and did find hymen intact. She also noticed that no injury was there over the cheek and face, nor did she find any spermatozoa in vaginal swab and accordingly she issued a report, which has been marked as Ext. 2. 5. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly the cognizance of the offences was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of Session the charges were framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. 5. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly the cognizance of the offences was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of Session the charges were framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Out of them P.W. 1, Lila Rani is the doctor, P.W. 4, Madhuri Kumari Is the prosecutrix whereas P.W. 5, Arun Bouri is the father of the victim girl, P.W. 6, Lata Devi is the aunt of the victim and P.W. 7, Khuti Boutin is the mother of the informant, all are hearsay witnesses. P.W. 2, Prahlad Bouri happens to be the uncle of the informant. 7. After the prosecution case was closed the appellant, were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidences brought on. The record, to which he denied. 8. The case of the defence, as appears from the suggestion given to the witnesses, is that father of the appellant had a shop and there was some dues against the family members of the victim and on the day of occurrence when the appellant came across with the informant he asked the informant as to why the dues are not being paid, upon it victim told him that the appellant has also taken away fish out of the pond forcibly and started altercation with her and upon it the appellant assaulted the informant with lathi. 9. The learned trial Court having found the appellant guilty convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that it is the case of the appellant from the beginning that on account of the fact that some money was due to be paid by the family members of the informant and when he asked it from the informant, an altercation ensued and in that course the informant, abused hini, but tin Informant in order fo make entire occurrence graver a false statement was given that she has been raped and these facts would be evident from the evidence of none other than the mother, Khuii Bourin (P.W. 7) of the informant as well as uncle, Prahlad Bouri (P.W. 2) and that apart the doctor (P.W. 1) has also not found any sign of rape upon the victim. 11. Heard learned Counsel for the State. 11. Heard learned Counsel for the State. Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that it is the case of the prosecution as has been made out in the Fardbeyan (Ext. 6) that while Madhuri Kumari the informant (P.W. 4) was in her house alone the appellant entered into the house and committed rape and then assaulted her with lathi. 12. The informant, in her evidence, though had supported the case as has been given in the F.I.R., but there has been no corroboration by any of the witnesses, namely, P.W. 3; P.W. 5; P.W. 6. who claimed to be the hearsay witnesses. Though all those witnesses, namely, P.W. 3; P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 have deposed that they were told about the occurrence by P.W. 4, but P.W. 4, in her evidence, never said that she told about the occurrence to either P.W. 3; P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. Moreover, the testimony of P.W. 4 does not get corroboration from his uncle Prahlad Bouri (P.W. 2), who has only stated that he saw the appellant assaulting the in formant and furthermore P.W. 7, who hap pens to be none other than the mother of the informant had deposed that occurrence of only assault had taken place. In this back ground of the testimonies of P.W, 2 and P.W. 7, if the medical evidence is looked al, the testimony of P.W. 4 certainly gets falsified as P.W. 1, has categorically deposed that hymen was found intact and she did not have any injury either on face or vulva. 13. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter if the case of the defence which appears to be quite probable is taken into consider ation the testimony of P.W. 4 that she was raped by (the appellant is shrouded with doubt and hence trial Court committed ille gality in convicting and sentencing the ap pellant. 14. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the appellant certainly de serves benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed.