JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 26.2.1990, whereby the Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, has acquitted the accused respondents namely Bajranga, Jainya, Sonya, Banshi, Bajya; Nathu, Latoor and Badri S/o Bajranga in the offences under Sections 147, 366 of I.P.C. and accused respondents namely Kana, Badri S/o Korilal, Prahlad, Judgraj, Ramnarayan, Bhairu and Badri S/o Phelu in the offences under Sections 147, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story is briefly stated as under: That on 27.4.1988 the complainant PW-4 Prahlad had taken she-goats as usual for grazing in jungle. On return in the evening at home, he came to know that at about 4.30 P.M. Bajranga, Badri S/o Bajranga, Latoor, Bhairu, Nathu, Bajya, Banshi, Sonya, Ram Narayan, Prahlad, Badri S/o Phelu resident of Halonda came and dragged his daughter Santra aged 22 years and threw her inside the jeep. Shri Rampal and Mohana tried to save her but the accused Prahlad threatened them by gun and accused Badri attempted to assault by 'gandasi' upon them, as such they could not rescue Mst. Santra and the accused succeeded in abducting her. The complainant Prahlad submitted a written report Ex.P-3 in Police Station Khandar whereupon F.I.R. Ex.P-4 was registered and investigation commenced. 3. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, prepared site plan Ex.P,5 recovered Mst. Santra, got her statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.0 and after usual investigation filed the charge-sheet in the offences under Sections 147, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. against them in the Court. The accused persons were read over the charge of the aforesaid offences who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case. The accused have claimed innocence in their explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On completion of trial, the accused respondents have not been found guilty and thus acquitted as indicated hereinabove. 4. None appeared on behalf of the accused respondents in the Court, hence heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and with his assistance scanned the relevant material available on record. 5. The only question springing for consideration in the instant appeal is that as to whether the accused respondents constituted an unlawful assembly, abducted Mst. 5. The only question springing for consideration in the instant appeal is that as to whether the accused respondents constituted an unlawful assembly, abducted Mst. Santra and thereafter Kana, Badri S/o Kori Lal, Prahlad, Ramnarayan, Bhairu and Badri S/o Phelu ravished her one after another in succession against her will and without her consent? 6. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and the relevant material, PW-1 Mst. Santra is alleged to have been abducted by the accused respondents on 27.4.1988 at 4.30 PM from her village Mor-Dungari which is 25 Kilometers away from Police Station Khandar. The F.I.R. Ex.P-4 is found to have been lodged by the complainant Prahlad at 11.15 PM on the very same day. The police during investigation recovered PW-1 Mst. Santra and PW-2 Dagdi and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.0 on 2.5.1988. Thereafter, with a view to give a turn to the case, the police got the statements of Mst. Santra recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.0 by the Judicial Magistrate on 4.5.1988 only after two days of her examination under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 7. Having perused the statements of Mst. Santra given on 2.5.1988, 4.5.1988 and thereafter before the Court on oath, it is found that she has made improvements in her statements on material particulars everyday. PW-10 Shri Narendra Singh, the then SHO Police Station Khandar, has stated that he recorded the statements Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-3 of Mst. Santra and Dagdi respectively on 2.5.1988. He reduced into writing only what Santra stated before him. On 2.5.1988 Mst. Santra stated before the Police that she and her mother-in-law Dagdi were taken by the accused respondents to Kherda. There they were kept with the ladies of the house. The accused respondents gave them same respect as is usually given to the ladies in every house. Regarding rape, Mst. Santra categorically stated that she had not been raped by anybody nor her mother-in-law was raped by anybody else but on 4.5.1988, the same Mst. Santra took a sudden turn and altered the entire prosecution story stating that she was forcibly dragged into the jeep and taken to Kharoda where the accused persons Badri, Bhairu, Jugraj, Prahlad, Ramnarayan and Kana ravished her forcibly one after another in succession. 8. The prosecution has examined both PW-1 Mst. Santra and PW-2 Mst. Dagdi but has not examined the Investigating Officer of this case. 8. The prosecution has examined both PW-1 Mst. Santra and PW-2 Mst. Dagdi but has not examined the Investigating Officer of this case. It is not evident from the material available on record as to what made the Investigating Officer of this case to get Mst. Santra examined by a Judicial Magistrate on 4.5.1988 when she had already stated on 2.5.1988 before PW-10 Narendra Singh the then SHO Police Station Khandar that she and her mother-in-law were given the same treatment in Kharoda what is usually given to the ladies in any house. Both of them were kept with ladies in that house and thereafter next day her father and other villagers along with the police came there and took them to their village. The medical examination report Ex.P-1 and PW-2 both do not reveal that Mst. Santra sustained- any injury on her private parts and genitals. There is no explanation on record as to why Mst. Santra was examined twice first on 2.5.1988 and thereafter again on 4.5.1988. Vide medical examination report Ex.P-1, she has been stated to be below 17 years of age whereas in medical examination report Ex.P-2 no age of Mst. Santra has been recorded but her father PW-4 Prahlad has tangibly recorded her age to be of 22 years in written report Ex.P-3. Thus the statements of Mst. Santra, PW-2 Mst. Dagdi PW-4 Ramnarayan are found to be laden with contradictions on material particulars and inconsistencies. The medical report also does not support the prosecution case. The statements of PW,1 Mst. Santra and PW-2 Mst. Dagdi do not inspire any confidence. The manner in which these witnesses have changed their version every time lead me to hold their statements to be unreliable and untrust-worthy. The medical report also does not support the prosecution case. The statements of PW,1 Mst. Santra and PW-2 Mst. Dagdi do not inspire any confidence. The manner in which these witnesses have changed their version every time lead me to hold their statements to be unreliable and untrust-worthy. The learned trial Court has critically examined and properly appreciated the evidence of these witnesses in detail and has recorded the finding as under:- " bl izdkj vaos"k.kf/kdkjh ujsafnzflag v0lk0 10 ds dkuksa ls ;g lkfcr gS fd larjk v0lk0 1 o nxM+h v0lk0 2 us iqfyl dFkuksa esa ckrs dgh Fkh muesa ifjorZu dj lkf{k;ksa us U;k;ky; ds dFkuksa esa ifjorZu fd;k gSA v0lk0 10 uaa0 ds dFkuksa ls ;g lkfcr gS fd lkf{k;k larjk v0lk0 1 us vius iqfyl dFku izn'kZ nh0 1 ds Hkkx , ls ch esa ;g fy[kk;k Fkk mldks rFk mldh lkl dks [kksjnk esa cgw csVh dh rjg j[kk rFkk cgw csfV;ksa ds lkFk lqyk;k mlds lkFk dksbZ cnQsyh ugha dhA bl izdkj lkf{k;k larjk v0lk0 1 vius iqfyl dFku izn'kZ nh0 1 ds eqdkcys U;k;ky;ksa ds dFku esa lq/kkj fd;k gSA ;s lq/kkj lkf{k;k }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) cykRlax dk vijk/k ds fy, fd;s x;s gS blfy, lkf{k;k }kjk fd;s x;s mDr of.kZr lq/kkj dqfVy mn~ns';ksa ds fy, fd;s x;s gS blfy, egRoiw.kZ izd`fr ds gSA blfy, ;g lq/kkj larjk v0lk0 1 ds dFkuksa dks vfo'oluh; cukrs gSA tc lkf{k;k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj ,d dFku ds LFkku ij nwljk dFku dgs rks ;g /kkj.kk curh gS fd og ,slh lk{kh gS ftl ij fdlh Hkh iz;kstu gsrq dksbZ fo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ,slh lkf{k;k dh ujsafnzflag dksbZ fo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS ,slh lkf{;k dh lk{; fo'oluh; ugha gksrh blds vykok larjk ds ;s dFku fd mlds lkFk cykRlax fd;k x;k fpfdRlh; lk{; ls Hkh lefFkZr ugha gSA v0lk0 1 larjk us vius 'kiFkiwoZd dFkuksa esa dsoy cnjh] izgykn] tqxjkt Hks: dkuk o cnjh lkuh rFkk jkeukjk;.k ds gh uke cryk;s gS vU; vfHk;qDrx.k dks mlus ugha ifgpkuuk dfFkr fd;k gSA blh izdkj v0lk0 2 nxM+h us Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k esa ls dsoy Hks:] dkuk] cnjh] tqxjkt] cnjh] lkuh ds gh uke cryk;s gS vU; O;fDr;ksa ds ckjs esa mlus dgk gS fd os mlds ikl ugha vk;s Fks fdarq vkxs mlus dgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k mlds tsB ljiap txu o lksU;k dks ns[kkdj iNkMh esa Mwaxj dh vksj Hkkx x;s FksA bl izdkj mijksDr of.kZr nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us U;k;ky; ds dFkuksa esa lHkh vfHk;qDrksa dks uketn ugha fd;k gSA bu lkf{k;ksa }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dh vaos"k.k ds nkSjku 'kuk[krxh dh dk;Zokgh djokus ds vHkko esa muds U;k;ky; esa vfHk;qDrx.k dks ifgpkuus dh lk{; ewY;ghu oFkZysl gSA esjh fouez jk; esa v0lk0 1 larjk rFkk v0lk0 2 nxMh ds dFkuksa ds lk{; ijh{k.k ds vk/kkj ij ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd os lR; ds fy, dksbZ lEeku ugha j[krh gS rFkk os vius dFkuksa esa mudh bPNkuqlkj ifjorZu djus ls ugha pqdh gS oSls Hkh bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; xaHkhj =qfV;ksa ls xzLr gSA blfy;s bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa v0lk0 1 larjk rFkk v0lk0 2 eq0 nxMh dh lk{; vigj.k rFkk cykRlax tSls xaHkhj vijkf/k;ksa dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s i;kZIr ,oa fo'okl fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA " 10. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to fasten the guilt upon the accused respondents. The judgment of the learned trial Court is cogent and well merited. It does not suffer from any infirmity and I am in unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and in my firm view, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.11. For these reasons, the criminal appeal filed by the State being devoid of merits stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******