JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for ten years and seven years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- on each count and in defend thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2000/22 of 2000. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that informant Mangli Paharin had gone to Boarijore "Haat" in the afternoon of 23.3.2000 along with one Bara Sundari Paharin. Further stated, when both of them went to take laudi, appellant Mangal Pahariya along with co-convict dragged hot towards his house situated east of "Haat" and thereafter confining inside Khumbha repeatedly raped her. The informant became unconscious and later on found herself near her village bleeding for profusely. She was located by her undo and aunt, P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the afternoon of 24.3.2000 and brought to her house. 3. The matter was reported to Boarijore Police same evening at 8.30 P.M., on the basis of which Boarijore Police Station Case No. 34 of 2000 under Sections 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against both of them. The case of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Sections 376/307/34of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution duo to pressure put upon appellant Mangal Pahariya by the informant to marry her. However, the learned trial court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellants guilty on both counts to sentence them as mentioned aforesaid. 4. The appellants have remained in custody all along in jail and completed nearly seven years as on today. The main grounds raised in this appeal are that appellant Mangal Pahariya was under pressure to marry the informant who was living with him for last three to four years. It is also submitted that when he refused to oblige the informant, this false case has been lodged. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 376 as well as Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. According to Mr. It is also submitted that when he refused to oblige the informant, this false case has been lodged. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 376 as well as Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. According to Mr. Mahabir Prasad Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, the medical report does not support the allegation that the informant was subjected to rape. It is also submitted that the external injuries found on the informant also do not show that the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed. It was submitted that if two persons as per prosecution case tried to cause death of the informant, she must have received serious and visible injuries to show that the intention was to cause death whereas the external injures were superficial in nature and may have caused due to fall after taking wine or taudi by the informant. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that neither place of occurrence has been established nor the incident has been proved beyond doubts. 5. I have gone through the materials on record along with the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Informant Mangli Pahariyan has admitted in cross-examination before the trial court that she know appellant Mangal Pahariya for last three years and she was living with him as his wife at the time of the alleged offence. She further admitted that the appellant has got his wife and children. She further admitted in last portion of paragraph-2 that she has not been examined by the police after her statement recorded in fardbeyan. According to her own version, next day in the morning she became conscious but remained in the said Khumbha till P. W.1 and P.W.2 arrived there and brought her to police station. She admitted that she has filed affidavit before the trial court in connection with this case. 6. In this context, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 , the first persons to locate P.W.3 is important. Both of them asserted that when the informant did not return from "Haat", next day they tried to search her and readied Budi Sodo, a lonely place surrounded by hillocks and found that the informant was lying injured in semi conscious state. They were informed about the alleged offence by the appellant. Both of them asserted that when the informant did not return from "Haat", next day they tried to search her and readied Budi Sodo, a lonely place surrounded by hillocks and found that the informant was lying injured in semi conscious state. They were informed about the alleged offence by the appellant. They further brought her on cot to house, thereafter to police station. P.W.1 has admitted in cross-examination that the informant used to live with appellant Mangal Pahariya as she wanted to marry with him. He further admitted that after sometimes, the informant has left the appellant because she was chased out. P.W.2 similarly admitted that the informant used to live with the appellant though he was already married having children. Therefore, the relation between the informant and appellant Mangal Pahariya like husband and wife, is not disputed. The question, therefore., remains if the appellants have committed rape as per allegation made out by P.W3 on 23.3.2000 or not. 7. The investigating officer (P.W.4) has admitted that he has not sent any material for forensic report. He has described the place of occurrence, Khumbha, situated at a lonely place. P.W.5 Dr. Lily Singh, though found external injuries on informant of various natures mentioned that the sign of rape was not available because the informant was undergoing menstruation period. The lady is admittedly major. The seizure list of the bloodstained petticoat in such circumstances becomes normal and does not to go prove that she was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse resulting in bleeding on her private parts. In such circumstances, the story of rape could not be proved beyond reasonable doubts. Further part of the prosecution story is that she was assaulted with intention to cause death is also not proved by medical evidence as the injuries found on the informant by P.W. 5 nowhere mentions that they were grievous in nature. In any circumstances, the appellants having remained in custody for nearly seven years have suffered for whatever overt act they have committed. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find and hold that the prosecution in the facts of preset case has not been able to prove beyond doubts the charges against the appellants. As such, the present appeal has got merit and deserves to be allowed. 9. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find and hold that the prosecution in the facts of preset case has not been able to prove beyond doubts the charges against the appellants. As such, the present appeal has got merit and deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants is hereby set aside. Both the appellants, who are in jail, are directed to be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.