JUDGMENT :- The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.54 of 2007 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. The appellant is in jail. 3. PW-5, the prosecutrix, reported to Police Station Deulgaon Raja on 25-3-2007, and on oral report offence was registered under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC. The investigation was carried out and charge-sheet under Section 376 of IPC was filed. 4. The prosecution has relied upon witnesses, namely PW-5, the prosecutrix, PW2, who had examined the prosecutrix on reference after lodging the report, PW-6, the sister of the prosecutrix, and PW-7, the uncle of the prosecutrix, and other witnesses. The case banks upon the testimony of PW-5, the prosecutrix, and PW-2, the Medical Officer, as other aspects are not under serious challenge. 5. The conviction is challenged by the appellant by oral submissions and various grounds raised in the memo of appeal, which can be summarized as under : (a) Original false complaint of attempt to rape was converted into a charge of rape. (b) The medical report of prosecutrix is silent on the point of forcible intercourse. (c) The Medical Officer has not deposed about the said fact before the Court. (d) From the prosecution case it is not established that accused had committed rape on prosecutrix and at the most the case could be said of sec.354, I.P.C. (e) There are material omissions in the evidence of prosecutrix which goes to the root of case and as such her version of forcible rape becomes seriously doubtful. (f) Omissions are of serious nature and are proved from cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. (g) The C.A. report is also not supporting the case of the prosecution so also version of prosecutrix. (h) Aspect of acrimony between accused and the uncle of complainant is not at all considered. 6. In order to demonstrate how the grounds argued do arise, the learned Advocate for the appellant has read out with emphasis and took this Court through: (i) Exhibit 27 (original in vernacular) from the record and proceedings, and Exhibit 28 FIR in printed format. (ii) Statement of PW-5. (iii) Statements of Medical Officers PW-2 Dr. Dnyaneshwar Gode (Exhibit 15). (iv) Report of medical examination and statement of PW-3 Dr. (ii) Statement of PW-5. (iii) Statements of Medical Officers PW-2 Dr. Dnyaneshwar Gode (Exhibit 15). (iv) Report of medical examination and statement of PW-3 Dr. Ramesh Kakad (Exhibit 18). (v) State of the Investigating Officer PW-9 Shri. Mustak Ahamad. The learned Advocate has also read out evidence of other witnesses. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that a case of attempt to rape was originally lodged, which was then converted into a case of rape on account of enmity between the appellant and the uncle of the complainant. 8. He has further urged that this is not just a case of minor omissions or contradictions, but is a case of serious improvements, which is graver than the omissions and contradictions. 9. The omissions, according to him, which are of such a grave nature, which amount to bringing total artifice in the case, need to be evaluated with the same yardstick with which the contradictions are evaluated and by applying the same yardstick as in the case of Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and where the improvement is of such a grave nature that it even crosses the limit of contradictions, the testimony of the prosecutrix slides below the worthiness and it would be not just unsafe but wholly untenable to base the conviction on such statement. 10. The learned Advocate for the appellant has then placed reliance on the reported judgments of this Court, viz. (i) State of Maharashtra Vs. Maroti Shivaji Sakarage (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 696), (ii) Abdul Gani s/o. Abdul Gaffar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 722), and (iii) Rajkumar Rangrao Bodule Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1961). 11. The learned APP for the respondent/State, in reply, has submitted that the testimony of the sole prosecutrix would be sufficient to base the conviction and omissions or defects in the charge would not seriously prejudice the trial. In support of this submission, the learned APP has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Alamgir Vs. State (NCT, Delhi) ( (2003)1 SCC 21 ), (ii) K. Prema S. Rao Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao ( (2003)1 SCC 21 7: [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 334 (S.C.)]), and (iii) State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Derha ( (2004)9 SCC 699 ). 12. State (NCT, Delhi) ( (2003)1 SCC 21 ), (ii) K. Prema S. Rao Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao ( (2003)1 SCC 21 7: [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 334 (S.C.)]), and (iii) State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Derha ( (2004)9 SCC 699 ). 12. The judgments relied upon by the learned APP for the respondent/State would apply if the testimony of the prosecutrix withstands the test of proof of facts. 13. Perused record, and judgments and examined the grounds and arguments urged. Upon scrutiny, this Court has noted the following points, namely :- (a) In the complaint Exhibit 27 which is in vernacular is "Tyane Mala Chhedle". When freely translated, it would mean "He has teased me". Even in later part of the complaint, the said version "teasing" is repeated as "Machhi Chhedchhad Keli Hoti", meaning thereby that "He has teased me". (b) The time of incident is shown to be 16.00 to 16.30 hours on 25-3-2007. (c) The FIR Exhibit 28 registered on the basis of the complaint Exhibit 27 that the time of receipt of information is shown to be 16.42 hours on 25-3-2007, however according to PW-9 complainant arrived in Police Station to report at 6 p.m.. (d) It is seen from the letter of reference for sending PW-5, the prosecutrix, to the Medical Officer, Deulgaon Mahi that it was received at about 9.30 p.m. on 253-2007 (Exhibit 16) and the medical examination was completed at about 10.20 p.m.. (e) The medical examination of the accused was got done, which was completed at about 5.35 p.m. by the Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Deulgaon Raja. (f) The complainant was referred to the Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Deulgaon Mahi and was examined by a Medical Officer, who is male. Reference to Rural Hospital, Deulgaon Mahi is allegedly made because no Lady Medical Officer is available at Deulgaon Raja. (g) Prosecutrix was not referred to District Hospital, Jalna which Investigating Officer admits is only at 25 kms. away from Deulgaon Raja. (h) The medical examination of the victim though reveals a laceration on vagina on lateral both sides, there is no mention as to rupture of hymen. (i) In the cross-examination, PW-2 Dr. Dnyaneshwar Gode admits that there is every possibility of rupture of hymen at the first menstrual cycle and states that rupture mayor may not occur if the girl below 10 years is raped. (j) PW-3 Dr. (i) In the cross-examination, PW-2 Dr. Dnyaneshwar Gode admits that there is every possibility of rupture of hymen at the first menstrual cycle and states that rupture mayor may not occur if the girl below 10 years is raped. (j) PW-3 Dr. Dnyaneshwar Gode also admits that there is every possibility of tear in the vagina if the sexual intercourse is done by adult person with a minor girl. He then admits that he is unable to give the size of laceration. (k) It has come on record that on 25-3-2007, the accused was referred for medical examination to Rural Hospital, Deulgaon Raja. He was examined at 5.25 p.m. and the examination was concluded at 5.35 p.m. The medical report answering the queries and injuries, etc., on the person of the accused is on record at Exhibits 19 and 20, which are ten in number and also that the accused is found to be under influence of liquor and does not have proper orientation. (l) In the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Ramesh Kakad, who had examined the accused, has very specifically deposed about the time of arrival of the accused for medical examination and the status of the injuries on the person of the accused. He has noticed 10 injuries on the person of the accused. (m) It is also suggested from the cross-examination of PW-7 and other witnesses that there was some incident of quarrel and assault between the uncle of the prosecutrix and the accused, and that the accused had lodged the report to Police Station. (n) Exhibit 39, the report of Chemical Analyzer, also reveals that Exhibits 1 and 2, the clothes of the prosecutrix, and Exhibit 3, the pant of the accused, do not disclose any remains of semen. (o) The report of the Chemical Analyzer, (Exhibit 40) reveals that no semen is detected on Exhibit 1 i.e. vaginal swab, in the background that the story later on developed by the prosecutrix reveals a complete act of rape. (p) In the testimony of PW-9 Mustak Ahamad, PSI of Police Station Deulgaon Raja, this witness admits that the prosecutrix had come to Police Station at about 6 p.m. He further admits that at the time when the prosecutrix came, the accused was already sent for medical examination. (p) In the testimony of PW-9 Mustak Ahamad, PSI of Police Station Deulgaon Raja, this witness admits that the prosecutrix had come to Police Station at about 6 p.m. He further admits that at the time when the prosecutrix came, the accused was already sent for medical examination. (q) PW-9 Mustak Ahamad has not explained as to how and in what circumstances the prosecutrix was referred for medical examination at Deulgaon Mahi, which is at a distance of 21 kms., while the District Hospital at Jalna is available at 25 kms. from Deulgaon Raja. (r) Insofar as the contradictions and omissions are concerned, this witness admits that the prosecutrix had lodged a report of attempt to commit rape. He also admits that while lodging the FIR. the prosecutrix did not complain or assert of penetration of penis into vagina. He then admits that the accused gave a push to her right shoulder by his left shoulder. 14. Considering what is emerging from the evidence which is noted in foregoing para, the impressions gathered and conclusions which are impelled are as follows :- (i) It is seen that the original complaint is for teasing and not even for attempt to rape. (ii) According to the version of the prosecutrix, as emerging from Exhibit 27, the act committed by the accused was of "Chhedchhad", it would at the most be described as outraging the modesty. (iii) The prosecutrix went to Police Station for lodging a complaint, she was accompanied by her sister and uncle, who would normally be believed to have ascertained what had happened and what was done to the prosecutrix and what may have probably happened. (iv) It is certain that some incident had occurred due to which the accused was referred to medical examination at Deulgaon Raia and various injuries were found on his person which background is suppressed from the Court creating strong doubt about truthfulness of story espoused by prosecution. (v) It goes unexplained as to when at 4.42 p.m. the complaint of attempt to rape was shown as received as seen from Exhibit 28 FIR in printed format, how is that the accused who was also available there was first referred for medical examination to the Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Deulgaon Raja, and as to why till 9.30 p.m. the prosecutrix was not referred. (vi) It is unexplained as to when the accused was referred for medical examination to Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Deulgaon Raia, in what circumstances the prosecutrix was referred for medical examination to Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Deulgaon Mahi 21 kms. away and even not to District Hospital at Jalna only 25 kms. away. (vii) The evidence ofPW-2 Dr. Dnyaneshwar Gode is suspicious, since there are suggestions in the cross-examination of this witness about the intimacy of PW - 7, the uncle of the prosecutrix, with that of PW-2. Moreover, this witness reveals that there was inner sexual intercourse, but does not state that it was forcible/ rape and does not record any symptoms such as tear to vagina. Story of rape therefore comes under serious doubt. (viii) It has not been brought on record as to in what circumstances the accused was referred for medical examination and had he suffered injuries, whether a crime was recorded, etc. 15. Considering the sum effect of various facts noted above, it is clear that the omissions in the statement of prosecutrix, and improvements are proved and weight of evidence of PW-5 prosecutrix, PW-2 Dr. Dnyaneshwar Gode and PW-9 reveal only conclusion that story of rape has been hatched up. Version of prosecutrix is unworthy of trust. The story of rape narrated by the prosecutrix has thus crossed the limits of doubt to reach the level of concoction. The argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the complaint is just not only doubtful but also false is seen to be well-founded. The fact that injuries on the person of the accused go totally unexplained do prove the defence of accused about prior quarrel and assault on hi m by PW - 7 Karbhari is very well raised. Conduct of prosecution therefore comes under grave suspicion. 16. In the result, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is quashed and set aside. The appellant/accused be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.