JUDGMENT 1. Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J. - The accused appellant has sought to challenge in this appeal under Section 371(2) Criminal Procedure Code, the judgment dated 27.6.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 27/1984, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default of which to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief and relevant facts of the case are that a report came to be lodged by Smt. Vimla on 25.2.1984 at police station, Buhana. The said report was in respect of an incident, which had taken place on 24.2.1984 at about 2 p.m.It was stated in the report by the prosecutrix Vimla Devi that her family had sown the agricultural field in partnership with the accused. Further it is stated that at about 2.00 p.m. on 24.2.1984 along with her two nanads (husband's sister) Sumer (PW 6) and Bala (PW8) she was uprooting the grass in the field at one Banwarilal and at that time and accused appellant came and asked her two nanads to go and work in another field. Thereafter, when her two nanads had gone away, the accused appellant forcefully took the prosecutrix and committed the offence of rape.It is also stated in the report that at the time when the accused appellant was committing the offence and a hue and cry was raised. Smt. Nathi W/o Leelaram Harijan who was working in the neighbouring field, came to the place of occurrence and then the accused ran away. It is also stated in the report that Hanuman Singh had also witnessed the occurrence. 3. During the course of investigation, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and her clothes as well as the clothes of the accused were seized by the police. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the accused person for the offence of' rape. Subsequently, on committal of the case, the learned trial court framed charge against the accused appellant on 21.11.1984 for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned trial court commenced the trial after formulating the points for consideration. The prosecution had, in support of its case, produced 12 witnesses and many documents, which were duly exhibited. Subsequently, on committal of the case, the learned trial court framed charge against the accused appellant on 21.11.1984 for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned trial court commenced the trial after formulating the points for consideration. The prosecution had, in support of its case, produced 12 witnesses and many documents, which were duly exhibited. Thereafter the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cri. PC was recorded by the learned trial court. The accused had stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity further stated that one Mool Singh is the friend of the complainant party and it is because of him that the instant case has been falsely lodged against him. In defence, the accused appellant produced Hanuman Singh as DW 1. On completion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence is aforementioned. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment passed by the learned trial court on various grounds. He has submitted that the report in the instant case had been lodged after an inordinate delay. According to him taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay of 27 hours in lodging report is very much vital. He was further submitted that the prosecution story is falsified on account of the fact that the medical evidence record shows that the prosecutrix did not sustain any injuries, particularly on private parts of the body. This alone, as submitted by the learned counsel for accused appellant is sufficient to throw out the prosecution story in respect of sexual intercourse having been committed on the prosecutrix by force and against will/consent. The learned counsel for appellant has also emphasised on point that, it has come on record that husband of the prosecutrix was very much at home but neither a prompt report had been lodged by him nor he has come fore the trial court to support the prosecution story. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has also submitted that the clothes of the prosecutrix were seized on the next day, for the reasons best known to the investigation agency, though the prosecutrix was very much present before the police since the time of lodging the report by her. 6. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has also submitted that the clothes of the prosecutrix were seized on the next day, for the reasons best known to the investigation agency, though the prosecutrix was very much present before the police since the time of lodging the report by her. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court. He has further submitted that the prosecution case is well proved from the evidence on record and it was the accused appellant who had committed the offence of rape on the prosecutrix Vimla Devi, who is of a tender age. He has also tried to controvert the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant. 7. The rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties have been thoughtfully considered by the court and the evidence recorded by the trial court has been carefully perused. The incident in this case had taken place on 24.2.1984 the day at about 2.00 p.m. The report had been lodged on 25.2.1984 at 5.00 p.m. in the evening by the prosecutrix herself, who is wife of Kishan Lal. The learned trial court has itself recorded that the prosecutrix had stated that her husband was away from home for the last 10 days, as he had gone to Jaipur for filing up a form. But the nanad husband's sister Sumer) (PW6) has categorically stated that her brother was very much at home. In such circumstances, the delay lodging the report and the non-appearance of the husband of the prosecutrix before the trial court, certainly becomes crucial. 8. As per the case of the prosecution, in first information report itself, the two persons who had seen the occurrence were Smt. Nathi W/o Leelaram Harijan, who was working in the field which was in the neighborhoods and also Hanuman Singh. So far as Smt. Nathi W/o Leelaraman Harijan is concerned, she has not at all supported the prosecution story and as she was declared hostile. As regards other eye witness, namely Hanuman Singh, it is noteworthy that the prosecution has dropped him and did not produce as a witness before the trial court. It was defence who had brought Hanuman Singh in the witness box as their witness (D.W.1). As regards other eye witness, namely Hanuman Singh, it is noteworthy that the prosecution has dropped him and did not produce as a witness before the trial court. It was defence who had brought Hanuman Singh in the witness box as their witness (D.W.1). He has categorically deposed that accused appellant was not seem coming any offence of rape on the prosecutrix. Therefore, it is important to note that the two star witnesses of the prosecution, who had been named in the FIR as eye witnesses, had not supported the story of the prosecutions and this certainly caste a shadow of doubt on their case. 9. So far as the other evidence of the prosecution in respect of the clothes of the prosecutrix, seized during the course of investigation is concerned it is to be noted that they were seized after long delay i.e. the next date though the prosecutrix was very much before the investigation agency since the filing of the report. Moreover, the prosecution witness Mohan Singh has categorically stated that the lehnga of the prosecutrix Vimla was not seized immediately but it was in fact seized on 28.2.1984. Therefore, there are material contradictions in respect of the time of seizure of the clothes of the prosecution and the forensic laboratory report received on the basis of the clothes so seized definitely creates a doubt. 10. The other evidence on record produced by the prosecution is of the family members of the prosecutrix who are definitely interested persons. There is no doubt about the fact that the prosecutrix is not only grown up but is a married woman and wife of Kishan Lal Harijan. 11. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the prosecution has, in the instant case, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are reasons more than one which caste a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story in respect of the commission of the offence alleged. In my considered opinion, in such a situation, the benefit should be granted to the accused. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant deserves to be set-aside. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.6.1985 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant deserves to be set-aside. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.6.1985 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail and his bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******