JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated August 1, 2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the appellants husband and wife were convicted and sentenced as under : Charan Singh U/s. 376 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s. 344/120B IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. U/s. 382 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Smt. Krishna : U/s. 376/120B IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s. 344/120B IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. U/s. 382/120B IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is the prosecution case that the prosecutrix I (name withheld) handed over a written report (Ex.P-1) on June 23, 2004 to SHO Police Station Vidhayakpuri Jaipur to the effect that she fell in love with one Rakesh, who asked her to go to Jaipur. On June 9, 2004 she left her village for Jaipur. She travelled by bus to Jaipur and got down at bus-stand. In front of Rajput Hostel she met with Krishna (appellant), who allowed her to reside in her house. In the house of Krishna she met with Charan Singh, husband of Krishna. On the next day while Krishna was away Charan Singh committed rape on her. This illegal act was repeated again on June 13. Charan Singh and Krishna persuaded her to marry with their near relative Sattu, who came over there and thereafter committed rape on her nine times. Sum of Rs. 15,000/- brought by her from her village was also snatched by Charan Singh and Krishna. On that report a case under sections 376, 344 and 120B was registered and investigation commenced. The prosecutrix was medically examined, appellants were arrested, statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. On that report a case under sections 376, 344 and 120B was registered and investigation commenced. The prosecutrix was medically examined, appellants were arrested, statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under sections 376, 376/120B, 344, 344/120B, 382 and 382/120B IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellants claimed innocence. One witness in support of defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 3. I have pondered over the submissions advanced before me and carefully scanned the material on record. 4. The prosecutrix (Pw.2) in her deposition stated that for about nine months she had physical relations with Rakesh to whom she wanted to marry. After this fact came to the notice of her father and uncle, they gave beating to her and Rakesh both. On June 1, 2004 Rakesh told her that they will flee to Jaipur to marry. She, therefore, on June 9, 2004 stole a sum of Rs. 15,000/ from the suitcase of her father and boarded a bus which was going to Jaipur. At Jaipur Krishna (appellant), who permitted her (prosecutrix) to live in her house. On the next day while Krishna was away, Charan Singh committed rape on her. She disclosed this fact to Krishna, but she did not react. Charan Singh again committed rape on her on June 13. Thereafter Krishna and Charan Singh did not allow her to go out. Charan Singh called his brother Sattu from Hindaun, who committed rape on her continuously till June 22. When all the family members had gone out on June 23, leaving her alone, she came out of the house with the help of And and wile she was going to Bus-stand, Charan Singh and Krishna belaboured her on the way. Bystanders took them to the police station. When all the family members had gone out on June 23, leaving her alone, she came out of the house with the help of And and wile she was going to Bus-stand, Charan Singh and Krishna belaboured her on the way. Bystanders took them to the police station. In her cross examination, she admitted that she did not sustain injuries on her genitals and after Charan Singh committing rape on her, she had slept in the room with Charan Singh whole night. Once she had gone to STD booth to attend telephone call of Rakesh. At that time many persons were sitting at STD booth, but she did not make any complaint to them about commission of rape on her. 5. According to Dr. Manju (Pw.4) who examined the prosecutrix, no injury was found on her genitals. 6. Factual situation emerges from the material on record may be summarised thus : (i) On the date of alleged offence the age of prosecutrix was more than 18 years. (ii) Prosecutrix did not receive any injury on her genitals, though she was subjected to sexual intercourse many a times by Charan Singh and Sattu. (iii) During the stay at the house of Charan Singh, the prosecutrix was allowed to visit STD booth. (iv) AT STD booth the prosecutrix did not make any complaint to the persons sitting there about rape on her. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a similar situation, observed in Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1998 SC 2694 ) as under:- (Para 11) "Then coming to the conviction of the appellant under section 376 IPC, although both the Courts below have held after accepting the evidence of prosecutrix being truthful held that the appellant has forcibly committed the rape, we are of the opinion that the said finding is unsustainable. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity not only to run away from the house at Ramgarh but she could have also taken help of neighbours from the said village. The medical evidence of Dr. Maya Shankar Thakur (PW.2) also indicates that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix including her private part. Her entire conduct clearly shows that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and if this be so, the conviction of the appellant under section 376 IPC cannot be sustained..." 8. The medical evidence of Dr. Maya Shankar Thakur (PW.2) also indicates that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix including her private part. Her entire conduct clearly shows that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and if this be so, the conviction of the appellant under section 376 IPC cannot be sustained..." 8. In the instant case although the prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to run away from the house, she did not choose to do so. She did not raise even hue and cry. She did not make any complaint to anybody. It is difficult to believe that Krishna was a consenting party to the sexual act committed by her husband with the prosecutrix. Since Sattu is not before me, no opinion can be expressed about the allegations levelled against him. In the facts and circumstances of the case this possibility cannot be ruled out that the prosecutrix being a woman of easy virtue, herself permitted Charan Singh to commit sexual intercourse with her. Learned trial court did not appreciate the testimony of prosecutrix in right perspective. 9. For these reasons, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of learned trial court. I acquit the appellants Charan Singh and Smt. Krishna of the charges under section 376, 376/120B, 344/120B, 382 and 383/120B IPC. The appellant Smt. Krishna, is on bail, she need not surrender and her bail bonds stand discharged. Appellant Charan Singh, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******