JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Kailash Chand against the judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur dated 18.3.2006 whereby he was convicted under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.8.2005 prosecutrix Mamta lodged a written report at P.S. Phagi at 7.00pm wherein she reported that on the said day in the morning, she had gone to field for collecting fodder. When she was cutting fodder, accused-appellant Kailash came to the field and caught hold of her hand and dragged her in Jawar Crop and committed rape. She tried to raise hue and cry but the accused-appellant put her 'loogdi' in her mouth so that the she could not make hue & cry. After rape was committed her husband Ramji Lal who was grazing sheep nearby the place of incident, came on the spot. On seeing him, the accused-appellant ran away from the spot leaving behind his cycle. On this report, case under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was registered, site inspection was prepared and prosecutrix was put to medical examination for the offence of rape. The broken glass bangles of the prosecutrix were collected from the place of occurrence. Photographs of the crop was also taken. Lahanga (long skirt) of the prosecutrix was recovered. The accused-appellant was arrested. The accused-appellant was put to potensy test, his underwear was recovered and was sent to FSL for chemical examination. On examination by the FSL, the lahanga of prosecutrix and underwear of accused-appellant were found stained with human semen. The accused-appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. He denied the charge and he was put to trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. In the written statement, accused explained that he did not commit any offence of rape. In fact, at that time, he was plaughing the land of Kajor on sharing basis as the land was mortgaged with him and on the date of incident, prosecutrix was cutting fodder in the said field. In the written statement, accused explained that he did not commit any offence of rape. In fact, at that time, he was plaughing the land of Kajor on sharing basis as the land was mortgaged with him and on the date of incident, prosecutrix was cutting fodder in the said field. She was asked not to do so by his wife & Hazari but she continued to collect fodder. Due to this, an altercation took place and then husband of prosecutrix came on the spot. Some more persons i.e. Dhapu Mali, Nangi Mali, Sayal, Bajrang, Rampal Mali etc. also came on the spot so as to settle the dispute. Then Mamta, prosecutrix lodged a false report against him for rape. 3. In defence, as many as six witnesses have been examined. DW-5 Kajod has been examined on the point that he had mortgaged the land through Ex.D-5 with the father of the accused. DW-6 Seduram, father of accused has been produced so as to prove that the land was mortgaged with him through Ex. D/5 and the crop was being sown on sharing basis. He also deposed that he had dispute regarding residential premises for last 20 years with father-in-law of the prosecutrix. Smt. Santi DW-3 wife of the appellant, has been examined on the point that she was present at the time of incident and she also asked Mamta-prosecutrix not to cut fodder. DW-1 Nangi and DW-2 Ramkaran have also been examined on the point that beating between two parties took place at the time of incident and that the field was mortgaged with the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated as the story made by the prosecutrix is un-natural as no offence like rape could be committed just at a distance of 1.0km from the village and that too when the husband of prosecutrix was grazing sheep nearby the place of incident. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was objected by the accused and his wife and others for not cutting the fodder from the field which was mortgaged with them by Kajod but she did not pay any heed which resulted in beating and injuries to both sides. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was objected by the accused and his wife and others for not cutting the fodder from the field which was mortgaged with them by Kajod but she did not pay any heed which resulted in beating and injuries to both sides. It is also submitted that there is no eye-witness to support the prosecutrix version and PW-8 Hazari, the only independent eye-witness has not supported her version and that semen found on the Lahanga on the prosecutrix and underwear of the accused is not of much help to the prosecution case as these clothes were taken not on the same day of the incident but on the next day from the victim and after two days from the accused appellant. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court on the ground that testimony of the prosecutrix should not be discarded on the basis of what has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants as she is not expected to make false allegation at the cost of her reputation. It is submitted that fact of rape is supported from medical evidence adduced. 6. In view of rival submissions advanced and on going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as defence, it is revealed that incident is stated to be of 10.00 AM in the morning while the prosecutrix had gone to field to collect fodder. Her husband is stated to be nearby to the place of incident as he was grazing sheep. The prosecutrix has further deposed in her statement that accused along with Hazari came on the spot. In view of deposition of prosecutrix, incident of rape as alleged, seems to be un-natural as the accused cannot be said to have chosen to commit offence of rape as there was many people around including the husband and Hazari nearby the place of occurrence. That apart, the prosecutrix has deposed that her mouth was gagged by cloth and she could not cry while the rape was being committed but that appears to be also very un-natural because if she was dragged to the crop as stated by her, but while dragging, her mouth was not closed. She has deposed that after the rape, she cried and her husband rushed to the spot. She has deposed that after the rape, she cried and her husband rushed to the spot. As per prosecution, it is stated that her husband came and he himself chased the accused and some injuries were caused by him to the accused but her husband PW-9 Ramji Lal himself has admitted in the cross- examination that he came to know of the fact of rape after he had chased away the accused. That also appears to be quite un-natural in the circumstances narrated. The only corroboration which could be of some help to the prosecution in this case was the testimony of Hazari who is stated to be eye-witness of the place of occurrence as per prosecutrix herself but Hazari has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. The altercation took place and injuries caused to both the parties is further corroborated by the medical evidence as well as defence taken by the accused. The fact that field where incident has taken place was happened to be mortgaged with the accused and his father has proved this in defence. On the other hand there is no evidence on record to prove that place where occurrence took place was field of the complainant or anybody else than that of the accused. In the cross-examination, prosecutrix has been confronted with the contradictions and improvements in previous statements recorded before the police as also under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. In the police statement, she deposed that accused used to meet her and used to ask for sexual favour but she has denied to have stated like this. Thus the statement of prosecutrix has not been corroborated by any other independent witnesses on the point of rape and her statement is not worth credence in view of above discussion. The medical evidence adduced is not of much help as the Lahanga was recovered on the next day and underwear was recovered on the third day of the incident. The injuries found on the body of accused as well as prosecutrix are also not of much consequence in view of fact that accused has taken a defence that there has been incident of beating between them. There is no other confirmatory medical evidence found on the body of the prosecutrix suggesting of rape as deposed by PW-4 Laxmi Narain Meena. There is no other confirmatory medical evidence found on the body of the prosecutrix suggesting of rape as deposed by PW-4 Laxmi Narain Meena. Thus the defence of accused appears to be probable on the fact that the prosecutrix was collecting fodder on the field which was mortgaged to the father of the accused and on being asked not to do so, there was an altercation resulting in incident of beating between them and this led to lodging of false report of rape by the prosecutrix. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal of the appellant Kailash is accepted. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant Kailash is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 8. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.Appeal disposed of. *******