JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.:-This judgment of mine shall dispose of CRL.A.NOs. 64-SB of 1994 filed by Mahabir and Om Parkash, 210-SB of 1997 filed by Rajbir Singh and CRL.A.NO. 646-DBA of 1997 filed by State of Haryana. 2. Since the appeals have arisen out of the same facts, therefore, with a view to decide the appeals together facts are taken from Crl.A.No.210-SB of 1997. 3. Rajbir Singh accused was Sepoy in the Indian Army, therefore, after registration of the case vide FIR No.100 dated 7.5.1992, case of Rajbir was segregated and sent to Military Authorities whereas the remaining accused Om Parkash and Mahabir were tried for the offences under Sections, 376(2)(g), 342, 366 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC Consequently, vide judgment dated 2.12.1993, they were convicted and sentenced as under: Mahabir and Om Parkash U/s 366 IPC To undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. U/s 342 IPC To undergo imprisonment for six months each. U/s 323 IPC To undergo imprisonment for six months each. U/s 376(2)(g) IPC To undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 4. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated 14.5.1994 passed by Military Authorities, the case of the Rajbir Singh was sent back. Consequently, vide judgment dated 6.3.1997 while acquitting him under Section 376 IPC, he was convicted under Section 354 and 342/34 IPC and sentenced as under: U/s 342 IPC To undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/­ U/s 323/34 IPC To undergo imprisonment for one year. 6. The factual matrix of the case is that on 7.5.1992, in her statement Ex.PDD prosecutrix (name not disclosed) stated that when she was on her way back to her house and reached near the village well, the accused Mahabir, Rajbir Singh and Om Parkash picked her and took her to their house. After confining her in a room, they tore her clothes and inflicted leg blows. After confining her in a room, they tore her clothes and inflicted leg blows. Mahabir accused tore her shirt and tried to molest the Om Parkash and Rajbir Singh also touched her body with an intention to molest her which was observed by Daya Kaur PW5 and Rajo of their village. On the basis of statement Ex. PDD, the formal FIR Ex. PKK was registered at police station, Satnali under Section 342/354/323/34 IPC. However, after 12 days thereafter i.e. on 19.5.1992, on the basis of supplementary statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the offence was converted to under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Investigation was commenced. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused. 7. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined Dr. N.K. Arora PW1, Dr. Dharambir Singh PW2, Saroj prosecutrix PW3 Daya Kaur PW4, Leela Ram PW5, Chhatar Singh Verma, draftsman, PW6, Kurda Ram PW7, HC Kuldeep Singh PW8, Badri Parsad PW9, Shri Satish Ahlawat Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate PW10, and SI/SHO Dayanand PW11. 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. They further stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated on account of the enmity between the parties. 9. The trial ended in conviction. Hence, these appeals. 10. Arguments heard. Records perused. 11. The prosecutrix was a married lady of 21 years and her testimony could not inspire the confidence of the Court. She changed her stand twice. At the very initial stage, on 7.5 .1992, she levelled allegations of outraging her modesty against the accused by way of toring her clothes and touching her body and giving simple injuries to her but after 12 days, without change of the circumstances, she levelled allegations of rape against the accused. But these two different versions did not fit in with the medical evidence as given by Dr. Ms. N.K. Arora, PW1. As per her, no fresh injury except three small abrasions was not seen. In this, regard, the doctor has sated that these could be a result of domestic and agricultural pursuits and were of three days duration. Thus according to her those abrasions occurred her on 4.5.1992 and not on the day of occurrence. Ms. N.K. Arora, PW1. As per her, no fresh injury except three small abrasions was not seen. In this, regard, the doctor has sated that these could be a result of domestic and agricultural pursuits and were of three days duration. Thus according to her those abrasions occurred her on 4.5.1992 and not on the day of occurrence. She also could not observe any syptoms of the rape except that some human semen was detected on slides and swabs which in case of married lady could not be the decisive factor. The medical evidence further reveals that the prosecutrix was equipped with seven months pregnancy. If the story as led by the prosecution is accepted, then there must have been some marks of violence or some bodily injuries as a result of dragging her by the accused. Consequently, there is no reason to believe the testimony of prosecutrix on the basis of aforesaid aspect alone. 12. As a matter of fact, the case appears to have been registered against the accused on account of the enmity of Bhola Ram husband of the prosecutrix with the accused. It would be worthwhile to mention here that Mahavir and Om Parkash accused are the sons of Mehtab Singh and Rajbir Singh son of Maha Singh is their first cousin. Maha Singh and Mehtab Singh are real brothers. 13. Although Smt. Saroj (the prosecutrix) PW3 has denied that some months ‘prior to the occurrence her husband Bhola Ram had molested Smt. Bimla wife of Om Parkash accused, but Leela Ram has admitted this fact during his cross examination. He has further admitted that in that connection a meeting was held in the village and a fine of Rs.1100/- was imposed on Bhola Ram by the Panchayat. Kurda Ram PW7 has further admitted that Bhola Ram was asked by the Panchayat to pay said amount of Rs. 1100/- to the school. He, however, has stated that a false allegation was made by Om Parkash accused against him. Thus, crux of the matter is that , few months prior to the occurrence, a dispute regarding molesting of wife of Om Parkash by husband of prosecutrix arose and was taken to the Panchayat by the accused party and that the Panchayat had fined Bhola Ram to the tune of Rs. 1100/-. Thus, crux of the matter is that , few months prior to the occurrence, a dispute regarding molesting of wife of Om Parkash by husband of prosecutrix arose and was taken to the Panchayat by the accused party and that the Panchayat had fined Bhola Ram to the tune of Rs. 1100/-. Om Parkash and Mahabir are real brothers and Rajbir Singh is their first cousin, as admitted by prosecutrix PW3 in cross examination. Thus it appears that no such occurrence had taken place and Bhola Ram appears to have concocted the story against the accused he wanted to take revenge of the earlier occurrence in which wife of Om Parkash accused was molested by Bhola Ram, (husband of Smt. Saroj). 14. Thus the aforesaid motive as established by the witnesses examined by the prosecution could be a strong circumstance in favour of the accused and against the prosecutrix for implicating them to have revenge of the fine as imposed by the panchayat. 15. In the presence of the strong motive and contradictory evidence led by the prosecution and in the absence of the medical evidence to the effect that the syptoms of rape could not be detected I find it a fit case where prosecution could be said to have failed to bring home the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. For, the forgoing reasons, I hereby accept the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused Mahabir, Om Parksah and Rajbir Singh of the charges framed against them and direct them to be set at liberty. The bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. The fine, if any deposited by them, be refunded. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Haryana against Rajbir Singh fails and same is hereby dismissed. —————————