JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.1.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, whereby, accused appellant - Ishar Ram has been convicted for offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The charge agamst the accused appellant was that on 7.12.1987 at about 12 noon, he committed rape with Mst. Shingari, aged about seven years in the vicinity of village Padihara, when the prosecutrix was in her hut situated in the field. The report of the incident was lodged by Moola Ram, who is the father of the prosecutrix. Upon this report, police registered the case and commenced investigation. After investigation, the accused appellant was challaned under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. in the Court of learned Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused-appellant under Section 376 Indian Penal Code., to which, he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined eight witnesses. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code He produced one witness namely Prem Singh as DW-1 in his defence. After hearing, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused appellant as indicated above, against which, this appeal has been preferred. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 4. From the perusal of the judgment and the evidence on record, it appears that the judgment is perverse to the settled principles of appreciation of evidence. In this case, the prosecutrix is Shingari PW-4. Though, she is aged about seven years, but upon asking the questions, the learned trial Judge found her fit to give evidence by way of questions-answers. In the middle of the questions, she has specifically denied about the identity of the accused appellant. On the second question of similar nature of identity, the prosecutrix has stated that she never saw the accused appellant previously and she does not know him. Inspite of declaring her hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission from the Court for cross examination of the witness. On the second question of similar nature of identity, the prosecutrix has stated that she never saw the accused appellant previously and she does not know him. Inspite of declaring her hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission from the Court for cross examination of the witness. In the cross-examination, a statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code of the prosecutrix was read over to her, for which, she said that she has made this statement, but this statement has not been exhibited in the Court. It is settled principle of contradictions during cross-examination that when a witness is rescinding from her previous statement, the previous statement or any portion thereof, must be put before her else it has no evidentiary value. In this case, no such statement recorded by the police has been exhibited and that apart, no question has been asked to this effect to the Investigating Officer Khushal Chand PW-8 that he has recorded the particular statement of the prosecutrix Shingari. When the identity of the accused itself is disputed and the prosecutrix has also named someone else namely Rewant Ram, who is said to be real uncle of the prosecutrix and was present at the time of occurrence and who committed rape has neither been examined nor he was made accused. Merely on the basis of hypothication and conjectures, the Courts should not convict a person by depriving his life and liberty on the basis of sentiments. 5. The Courts are supposed to adhere to the rule of law by applying cannons of jurisprudence howsoever high the sentiments may be. In my view, the learned trial Judge has completely ignored the principles of Evidence Act as also the Rules relating to the appreciation of evidence. When in examination-in-chief, prosecutrix has not identified the accused and in cross-examination by the prosecution she is admitting her police statement, which is legally not a proved statement, naming accused, then holding him guilty on the basis of such statement is nothing but satire of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. 6. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 9.1.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu convicting accused-appellant - Ishar Ram for offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. and sentencing him for ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 6. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 9.1.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu convicting accused-appellant - Ishar Ram for offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. and sentencing him for ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment is set aside. Accused-appellant Ishar Ram is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. He is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******