JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and sentence of three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default six months R.I. recorded and awarded as per judgment dated 30.11.1988. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Alleged events, as per prosecution, leading to appellant's prosecution are that on 2.4.1987 at 8.00 P.M. Smt. S. accompanied with her younger sister Ms. C. arriving at Police Station Sadar orally lodged a report that yesterday she at agriculture field of Sadhu Singh, Sarpanch of 3B was cutting crops and during day Ranjha alias Gurdeep Singh and Didar Singh both were managing water, who went away in evening at 5 O'clock, and she continued work-at around 7- 7.15 came appellant Gurdeep Singh @ Ranjha, who told her of some urgent work so she asked what ? Then he told that have come to do x . rong act, on it complainant Ms. S. telling appellant that she is at par to her mother and as appellant tried to get hold of her, she tried to run away, but still appellant running after him getting hold of her and closing her mouth by his safa carried her to Kotha in the field of Sarpanch and forcibly removing clothes below her waist and committing immoral wrong act (sexual act) with her went away.3A. In the F.I.R., the complainant stated that after the incident she went to Sarpanch and panchayat concerned but no result, so now the report is. On this report, registering F.I.R. Ex.P-1 No. 58/1987 for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C., Sub-Inspector PW-11-(1) inspected place of occurrence on 3.4.1987 (2) seized pair of shoes found there said to be of appellant (3) arrested appellant on 13.4.1987 and he medically examined (4) on appellant's disclosure and at his instance from his house recovered underwear memos prepared are Ex.P-2, Ex.P- 2A, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-9, I/x.P-10, Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-12A. The prosecutrix complainant Ms. S. was medically examined on 3.4.1987 and taken vaginal smear and also her salwar, kachha sealed and prepared report Ex.P-5. Packets delivered intact at FSL for examination. Recording statement of witnesses and after usual investigation, charge-sheet submitted against the appellant for the offence of Section 376 I.P.C. and on committal is Sessions Case No. 57/1987 registered. 4. S. was medically examined on 3.4.1987 and taken vaginal smear and also her salwar, kachha sealed and prepared report Ex.P-5. Packets delivered intact at FSL for examination. Recording statement of witnesses and after usual investigation, charge-sheet submitted against the appellant for the offence of Section 376 I.P.C. and on committal is Sessions Case No. 57/1987 registered. 4. Accused-appellant charged for the offence of Section 376 I.P.C. that-on 1.4.1987 at about 7-7.15 O'clock in evening at the field of Sarpanch Sadhu Singh in Chak 3B, he forcibly committing sexual intercourse with Ms. S. committed rape-stated innocence and claimed trial. 5. Amongst the prosecution witnesses examined Ms. Sukh Devi PW-1 is complainant prosecutrix and Ms. Chhoti PW-2 her sister, Shyam Lal PW-3 is prosecutrix's son and Ms. Jani @ Khajani PW-7 daugher-in-law. Omprakash PW- 4 is brother-in-law of PW-1 and husband of PW-2. Sadhu Singh PW-10 Sarpanch is declared hostile by the prosecution. Didar Singh PW-9 witness of circumstances and of convening panchayat is also declared hostile. Chhaju Ram PW-5 deposes about Panchayat and reprimanding of appellant etc. Sukh Dev Singh PW-8 SHO registered F.I.R., Rajendra Singh PW-11 Sub-Inspector investigated and Dr. Rajendra Gupta PW-6 examined the prosecutrix and also the accused. 6. Explanation and defence of the accused as stated by him is that he plies Riksha and reaching home evening went back after a little at 5.00 P.M. taking his Riksha for picking up school students on returning found his wife Ms. Gurdev and mother-in-law Smt. Basant were beaten by wife of Omprakash and Ms. S, so when he was going to find out the matter, Omprakash, Surja, Ramjas and Shyam Lal began did beat him telling old woman is beaten and now he will be. As the appellant, 10 injuries of stick inflicted to him and his relative brought him to Ganganagar Hospital where remained under treatment for 13 days and on his statement taken in hospital, police registered F.I.R. Ex.D-1. 7. In defence again is examined Dr. Gupta, who medically examined the accused on 2.4.1987 and injury report Ex.D-4. Gareeb Singh DW-2 deposes about rival parties in the village and also that he heard some quarrel between women. 8. Learned Judge arriving conclusions that the appellant without consent of Ms. S. and forcibly having sexual intercourse with her committed offence of rape punished as above. 9. Gupta, who medically examined the accused on 2.4.1987 and injury report Ex.D-4. Gareeb Singh DW-2 deposes about rival parties in the village and also that he heard some quarrel between women. 8. Learned Judge arriving conclusions that the appellant without consent of Ms. S. and forcibly having sexual intercourse with her committed offence of rape punished as above. 9. Prosecution case as transpires from the sequence of events narrated by the prosecution witnesses is some what like that soon after the incident prosecutrix reported to Sarpanch, who telling her of embarrassment and defamation because incident occurred in his field told her to not to report police and that he will take care-she narrated incident to his son on that day or next day-panchayat also convened and assembled where before many villagers appellant accepting wrong act pleaded for forgiveness but PW-1 did not agree. As per evidence produced brother-in-law Omprakash PW-4 informed about the incident next day came and after panchayat they reported to police. It appears that Ms. C. Sister of the prosecutrix is wife of Omprakash, who is brother-in-law of PW-1. 10. On behalf of appellant argued that (1) though allegedly act is committed by use of force but no injury or any mark on the person of Ms. S (2) prosecutrix of 45-50 years of age, having a adult son PW-3 and any such possible act to her not possible (3) delay of about 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. (4) substantial inconsistent versions of witnesses with major contradictions and omissions (5) appellant severally beaten on that day who was admitted in hospital and on his statement recorded by police F.I.R. Ex.D-1 was registered against PW-3, PW-4 and others. Extensively reading statements argued that commission of act forcibly not possible or if at all any such incident occurred it was completely as per consent and willingness. 11. Smt. S. PW-1 states that after panchayat etc. she coming at Police Station Ganganagar lodged report Ex.P-1-in cross-examination states that brother-in-law Omprakash and relatives of Chhaju, Shyam Lal and Megha accompanied her to P.S. but could not assign any reason as to why report Ex.P-1 mentioned coming only of her and her sister. Smt. Chhoti PW-2 states that after panchayat, they went to Police Station and their 'parcha' got written by her. Smt. Chhoti PW-2 states that after panchayat, they went to Police Station and their 'parcha' got written by her. The then SHO PW-8 states that Sukh Devi came with his sister and on her report F.I.R. Ex.P-1 registered and he did not observe any person with these two. As per PW-1 she arrived in the hospital late in night and examined early in the morning. Similarly as per PW-2 and son PW-3 in night, they were in hospital and mother examined at 11.00 A.M. 12. Considering the deposition of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta PW-6 and report Ex.P-5 proved is that on 3.4.1987 Smt. section 45 years PW-1 was examined by him and no injury was on her, organs healthy and loose. 13. From the evidence of witness Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta who has again examined as DW-1 appears that on 2nd April at 9 0' clock in night he informing P.S. of appellant's admission examined appellant who was in male surgical 'B' ward and on his person were injuries (1) swelling upper lip (2) swelling nose (3) contusion around right eye (4) contusion points 12" x 10" back- these were many. All of blunt object and simple though X-ray for back and nose. Injuries are stated to be of twelve hours duration so inflicted on that very day 2.4.1987. 14. As per certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.D-3, it appears that Sub-Inspector Rajendra Singh, as follow up to rojnamcha entry No. 79 reaching hospital recorded at 9.15 P.M. statement of appellant Gurdeep Singh, who stated that in morning as ladies of Omprakash family has beaten his mother-in-law and he after finding details was going to his home at 5.00 P.M. then in village near diggi in street was obstructed by Omprakash, Shyam Lal, Ramjas, Budha Ram and Surja, who began beating him and on his shouting Sadhu Singh and villagers came and he bleeding from mouth and ear taken to hospital by brother Jagga. On this statement F.I.R. No. 59/1987 is registered for the offence under Sections 341, 147 and 323 I.P.C., so is proved that for the injuries caused to appellant on 2.4.1987 F.I.R. Ex.D-3 was registered at Police Station. 15. As above F.I.R. is delayed by 24 hours. Now considering and comparing versions of different witnesses. On this statement F.I.R. No. 59/1987 is registered for the offence under Sections 341, 147 and 323 I.P.C., so is proved that for the injuries caused to appellant on 2.4.1987 F.I.R. Ex.D-3 was registered at Police Station. 15. As above F.I.R. is delayed by 24 hours. Now considering and comparing versions of different witnesses. As per Smt. S. PW-1 accused coming to him told for immoral act and even on her retort that she is of the age of mother, accused getting hold and picking her up forcibly carried on back (of appellant) to kotha at Sarpanch field and after physical act threatened him of killing if mentioned to any one and on some "alarming sound" "khatpat" ran away. According to PW-1 she immediately reaching the house of Sarpanch told to Sarpanch, his mother and, wife, and Sarpanch Sadhu Singh telling that as incident happened in his field so will lead to defamation of all, therefore, she not to go to police neither to tell any one and he will take care. PW-1 further says that as she remained at house of Sarpanch searching him came at 10-11 in the night his son to whom wife of Sarpanch told of Smt. S. Being ill and Shyam Lal taken her to home-but early morning at about 5 A.M. she came back to Sarpanch's home and told him of deciding or else she going to police then Sarpanch told her to sit at his home-after some time came son Shyam Lal, who insistedly asked her and she narrated the incident to him. As per PW-1 in evening Panchayat was convened where Sarpanch proposed of beating appellant Ranjha by shoes by Smt. S. and others and make him ride on her after blackening of his face- appellant also seek forgiveness but, according to PW-1, they were not satisfied so lodged report. This witness and also PW-7 and other witnesses clearly state that the kotha where incident happened is about 2 killa/bigha from the place Smt. S. was working and village is also about 3-4 killa/bigha distance-some swelling at her neck-Panchayat convened only in the evening-no one accompanied them to Police Station-in village are two parties and in one party is appellant-appellant 40-45 years whose son 18-20 years-that do not know what decision taken in Panchayat. F.I.R. lodged by PW-1 does not have mention of any prevention or discouragement by Sarpanch for lodging the F.I.R. 16. Son Shyam Lal PW-3 states that at around 9.30 in night he reaching house did not find mother and wife told of her not coming back from work so, he went to house of Sarpanch where mother was sitting at cot and also were mother and wife of Sarpanch but not Sarpanch himself-wife of Sarpanch told of stomach pain to mother and also that she is given a tablet so she be let rest there, but he PW-3 brought mother to home in a Riksha-when he woke up in morning arrounded 7.00, mother was not so he reached field to see her and as mother not there went to house of Sarpanch where telling mother as to why came so early and why is so sad and disturbed, she weepingly told of the incident and also that appellant threatened. her of killing her son-now Ranjha offering Rs. 5,000-7,000. According to PW-3 he became annoyed and within few minutes Sarpanch came and told that Ranjha could not be available and he is calling him-matter shal be settled. He coming home informed Ms. Chhoti and they all again came to Sarpanch who again told of what shall be gained by reporting whereas money shall be spent so appropriate to settle there. According to PW-3 there he and Smt. Chhoti went to Ganganagar for informing uncle, Omprakash, who came back with them and asked Sarpanch as to why so far report not lodged-in evening at about 5-5.30 panchayat convened and appellant prayed for forgiveness and Sarpanch asked for beating and blackening of his face, then Panchayat disbursed without any decision and only lodged F.I.R. According to PW-3 in night neither mother told him of the incident so nor he to any one-next day mother at about 6.30 A.M. before his wife went to the house of Sarpanch-in the morning at about 8.30, mother at Sarpanch home told of the incident-uncle informed at Ganganagar at about 9.30 and all them returned village at about 10.30-Panchayat in evening and as they did not agree with the decision of the Panchayat so by 6.30 P.M. he, Omprakash, Chhaju Ram, Ramjas, Man Singh, Smt. Chhoti and mother were at Police Station-Kotha at the field of Sarpanch at a distance of 2 Bigha/killa from the village houses. 17. 17. PW-7 wife of PW-3 states that as she was informed of coming of her father, she returned at about 4.00 P.M. from the field living mother in law- mother-in-law Smt. S. not return till night so husband went to house of Sarpanch where wife of Sarpanch told him of stomach pain-mother-in-law brought by husband at about 11-12, who was weeping but said only of not being well. In late night she again asked still mother-in-law did not tell anything. In the morning when she woke up Smt. S. was not and so husband went to house of Sarpanch, who was told thereby Smt. S. of the incident. In cross-examination PW-7 states that in night only in about 2-3 or few minutes mother-in-law was brought by husband who continuously was weeping-and on next day at about 11.00 A.M. mother-in-law came back shouting from house of Sarpanch. 18. House of Omprakash PW-4 and that of Smt. S. is in same compound separated by wall. PW-4 states that he was on his masonry work at Ganganagar and at 1.30-2.00 noon came his wife and Shyam Lal and informed him of rape by the appellant with Smt. S. He and other straight came to house of Sarpanch where Smt. S. and father of Sarpanch was-at about 5.00 P.M. came Sarpanch who asked and informed them of Panchayat-at Panchayat people assembled where appellant accepted of committing act and Sarpanch told of blackening of his face and riding on her but they (complainants) did not agree and reported to police at Police Station. In the statement of this witness Ex.D-1 is mentioned that in Panchayat no decision was taken by Sarpanch and when confronted by this PW- 4 says that Sarpanch did not decide and ask them to lodge report to police. If that be so it means that as no decision reached at Panchayat so on asking of Sarpanch report was lodged whereas all witnesses including this PW-4 says that decision taken of blackening face etc. was not acceptable to them. Taken with the delay in F.I.R. and admitted talks of convening Panchayat and actually convening of Panchayat this contradictions is significant one. 19. was not acceptable to them. Taken with the delay in F.I.R. and admitted talks of convening Panchayat and actually convening of Panchayat this contradictions is significant one. 19. Version as given by Sarpanch Sadhu Singh PW-10 is declared hostile, that he was out to mandi Ganganagar where next day (of the incident) morning Smt. S. and her son came to him and told of quarrel with wife of appellant Ranjha @ Gurdeep Singh and also that appellant slapped his mother so just decision be. As per PW-10, he asked Shyam Lal to call his uncle and panchayat shall be convened afternoon at 4.00-panchayat convened at 4.30 where hot exchanges occurred and Omprakash spoke of beating to appellant so this witness PW-10 left telling them to decide themselves. PW-10 is declared hostile and as per him Smt. S. neither told him of any such (act) incident nor he to police. According to PW-3 he did neither tell to lodge report nor of not to report-in cross-examination say that in the evening Omprakash, Shyam Lal and others did severally beat appellant who to remain hospitalized for 12-13 days because of injuries. 20. Chhaju Ram PW-5 deposes that about 10-11 forenoon, Shyam Lal crossing him on way said that with her mother, appellant has done wrong act and he asked Shyam Lal to go to Sarpanch-he and other went to house to Sarpanch and Sarpanch spoke of why to go to police and the appellant is called by him, who can be punished right there-Panchayat assembled at about 5.00 at diggi near temple and appellant accepting pleaded forgiveness then Sarpanch proposed for beating and blackening of face but Omprakash, Shyam Lal did not agree brawl occurred and they lodged F.I.R. PW-5 in cross-examination state that in panchayat accused accepting act prayed for forgiveness and was told by him to police. Sarpanch proposing beating and blackening of his face etc. was told and narrated by him to police, but the same do not appear in his earlier statement Ex.D-2 and he could not assign any reason for it except that he had narrated. Since convening and assembling of the Panchayat in the entire episode seems to be a important event so above omission cannot be said to be inconsequential. 21. was told and narrated by him to police, but the same do not appear in his earlier statement Ex.D-2 and he could not assign any reason for it except that he had narrated. Since convening and assembling of the Panchayat in the entire episode seems to be a important event so above omission cannot be said to be inconsequential. 21. Reasoned assigned for delay is insistently asking of Sarpanch to not to till assembling of Panchayat but the same is not mentioned in F.I.R. Quite contrary and inconsistent are the statement regarding narrating of the incident by Smt. S. to his son and also where when and in what circumstances. Despite alleged Panchayat and presence of son, brother-in-law etc. there it does not appear that they definitely accompanied prosecutrix to Police Station-no injury or any marks on the person of Smt. S. According to Smt. S. she was taken by accused on his shoulder and back and also tells that after the act as some sound occurred (khatka) accused-appellant ran away. All these factor made entire incident highly doubtful and coupled with this is fact that on the statement of the appellant recorded in hospital on 2.4.1987, F.I.R. No. 59/1987 for the offences under Sections 341, 147 and 323 I.P.C. is registered against Omprakash, Shyam Lal, Ramjas, Budha Ram and Surja create grave doubt about the incident. The appellant had some injury and he was admitted to hospital as is proved by Medical Officer DW-1. 22. Considering above facts, it is highly doubtful that accused committed any such act or did commit act forcibly or against wishes, so the conviction cannot stand. 23. For the above reasons, the appeal is to be accepted. 24. Allowing the appeal, conviction and sentence of appellant Ranjha @ Gurdeep Singh for the offences of Section 376 I.P.C. (in S.C. No. 57/1987 judgt. dated 30.11.1988) is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences of Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant is on bail and bail bonds are discharged.Appeal allowed. *******