Judgment S.Bhalla, J. 1. Dharamvir (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has preferred this appeal against judgment of conviction dated 16.2.1999 and order of sentence dated 18.2.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamal by virtue of which he was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. Succinctly the facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that on 3.3.1995, the prosecutrix alongwith Chandro and Tejbir Singh met the police party headed by Mohinder Pal Assistant Sub-Inspector at Salwan Chowk and got recorded her statement to the effect that on the fateful day, she was going to her field for bringing green fodder and at about 11.00 a.m. when she reached near the field of Chander, all of a sudden accused Dharamvir came out of the field and took her in his grip and made her to lie down in the field of wheat crop. She resisted to get herself freed but to no use and ultimately the accused committed rape upon her against her wishes. On hearing noise, Chandro and Tejbir, who were cutting green fodder in the nearby field came to the spot but on seeing them, the accused fled away from the spot. On the basis of this statement, FIR was registered and the prosecutrix was got medicolegally examined. The Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence and took into possession pieces of broken bangles and one artificial ear-ring. The appellant was arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court. 3. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC the appellant denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. The appellant was arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court. 3. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC the appellant denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He took the stand that Deep Chand, husband of the prosecutrix, had to pay him Rs.2,000 and one day prior to the alleged date of occurrence, when he (appellant) had gone to the house of Deep Chand for demanding money, the later refused to give the money and rather started abusing him and during the exchange of hot words, Deep Chand and the prosecutrix threatened to teach him a lesson and as such he was falsely implicated in this case. He also examined Ram Chander as DW1 in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and after having gone through the entire evidence, convicted and sentenced of accused appellant, as noticed above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana and have gone through the records. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no mark of injury on the person of the prosecutrix and as such it cannot be said that any sexual assault was made on her. He further submitted that the prosecutrix is a married woman and is aged about 26-27 years and if she had made some resistance, then she must have received some injuries but the medical evidence does not show that she sustained any external injury on her body and there is considerable delay in lodging the report from the date of alleged Occurrence and moreover, the version given in the FIR is totally different to the statements made in the court. Furthermore, the material witnesses are closely related to the prosecutrix, therefore no reliance can be placed on their statements and as such the findings recorded by the learned trial court are liable to be set aside and he deserves to be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 7. Furthermore, the material witnesses are closely related to the prosecutrix, therefore no reliance can be placed on their statements and as such the findings recorded by the learned trial court are liable to be set aside and he deserves to be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 7. On the other hand, it is vehemently contended by the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana that there is no reason to believe the story put forward by the defence that on account of non-payment money by the husband of the prosecutrix, a dispute had taken place between the appellant and Deep Chand and due to that reason, the present case of sexual assault has been planted on the appellant. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses coupled with the medical evidence available on record, rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. 8. The entire prosecution rests on the statement of the prosecutrix. Admittedly the alleged rape was committed in a broad-day light and in an open field. It is the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix was going to her field for brining Barseen, on the way the appellant came and took her to the fields of wheat crop and she raised alarm and tried to get herself freed. The prosecutrix is a married woman in the age group of 24-25 years. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity not only to run away but at the same time to raise alarm in order to attract her relations, who, as per the prosecutrix, were working in a nearby field at a distance of half kila. Surprisingly, when the appellant took her to the field, she raised alarm, nobody was attracted to the spot and after committing the rape, when the prosecutrix raised alarm, her Nanad (husbands sister) Chandro and Devar (husbands younger brother) Tejbir, rushed to the spot and on seeing them the accused fled away. It does not appeal to reasoning at all that before committing the rape, the relations of the prosecutrix did not hear her voice and after committing the rape, they heard her voice and rushed to the spot and in front of them, the accused fled away from the spot. It does not appeal to reasoning at all that before committing the rape, the relations of the prosecutrix did not hear her voice and after committing the rape, they heard her voice and rushed to the spot and in front of them, the accused fled away from the spot. Further it also does not appeal to reasoning at all that the accused would took the prosecutrix to the field and would commit rape in the field particularly when her relations were working in the field only at a distance of half kila particularly when it is categorically admitted by her that the place of occurrence is visible from the place where her relations were working. Further the medical evidence also indicate that there was no mark of injury anywhere on the body of the prosecutrix including her private part. At this stage, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the statement of the prosecutrix, which clearly spells out that she was a consenting party. The relevant portion reads as under: "It is correct that the field whereby Nanad and Devar were working at the time of occurrence was visible from the place of occurrence. These two persons could be seen from the place of occurrence. These two persons were cutting the crops at that time. No other person was there at that time. I was taken by the accused by placing one hand on my mouth and with the other hand he dragged her to the place of occurrence.... When I was thrown on the ground by the accused, I raised noise. Thereafter the accused had broken the string of my salwar. I tried to save myself. I struggled for 2-4 minutes but did not succeed Crops were destroyed in(that process I do not know whether the accused had removed his clothes or not, again said, he removed his clothes but I cannot say which clothes were removed and which were not 4-5 minutes were taken by the accused in committing the offence of rape on my person. The discharge of the accused had taken place. I was discharged too. I did not resist...." The perusal of her statement clearly spells out that when the rape was committed, she did not resist in any manner because she has categorically deposed that "I also did not give any slap, fist blows, leg blows etc. The discharge of the accused had taken place. I was discharged too. I did not resist...." The perusal of her statement clearly spells out that when the rape was committed, she did not resist in any manner because she has categorically deposed that "I also did not give any slap, fist blows, leg blows etc. since I was under his grip. She also deposed that "the accused had not touched her breast." She pleaded ignorance whether she suffered any injury on her ear and hands when her bangles were broken. Her entire conduct clearly shows that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and if this is so, then the conviction the charge under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained. 9 Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused put one hand on mouth of the prosecutrix while with other hand he dragged her to the field where he committed rape upon her. In Partap Misra and Others v. State of Orissa1 it has been field by the Honble Apex Court that the opinions of the medical experts showed that it was very difficult for any person to rape single handedly a grown up and an experienced woman without meeting the stiffest possible resistance from her and the absence of any injury either on the accused or the prosecutrix was a clear pointer to the fact that she had not put any resistance to the alleged rape leading to the irresistible conclusion that she was a consenting party. In view of this, I find that it would have been virtually impossible for the accused to put one hand on the mouth of the prosecutrix and with another hand, he would drag the prosecutrix, who is admittedly 25 years and a young married woman, and after dragging her with one hand to the field, would commit rape upon her. It appears that the prosecutrix herself was a consenting party in performing sexual intercourse with the accused and that is why no resistance was put up and as such no injury marks were found on any part of the body including her private parts. 10. It appears that the prosecutrix herself was a consenting party in performing sexual intercourse with the accused and that is why no resistance was put up and as such no injury marks were found on any part of the body including her private parts. 10. Moreover, the Honble Apex Court in Dinesh Jaiswal v. State of M.P.2 has held that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story and the version of the prosecutrix can be believed if the story put forward by her prima facie inspires confidence. But in the instant case, as noticed above, the version put forward by the prosecutrix does not appears to be plausible and rather the circumstances show that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. 11. The admission of the prosecutrix in her cross examination reproduced above, further proves beyond doubt that the story put forward by the prosecution is wholly unsustainable. It is significant to note that the victim was dragged in an agriculture field and raped but even then, she did not receive any injury anywhere on her body as is clear from medico-legal report Ex. PD, and even the abrasions were not found by the Medical Officer who stepped into the witness box and categorically deposed that the prosecutrix did not complain of any pain, she was young female moderately built and nourished about 25 years of age by appearance. The Medical Officer further deposed that there was no mark of injury anywhere on the body and hymen was absent and no fresh tear was seen. 12. Moreover, the prosecutrix has categorically deposed and at the cost of repetition, I would like to observe that no resistance was shown by her at the time of committing the crime. I am conscious of the fact that the absence of the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the allegation or an evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. It will all depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the facts and circumstances are beating the drum that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. It will all depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the facts and circumstances are beating the drum that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The other important feature of the case is that the sister-in-law (nanad) and brother-in-law (devar) of the prosecutrix were at a distance of half kila and when they came to the place of occurrence the accused fled away but they did not straightaway chased the accused. The prosecutrix during her cross-examination has categorically admitted that the place where her relations were cutting the crops is at a distance of half a kila and the said place is visible from the place of occurrence and the said two persons could be seen from the place of occurrence. All this clearly spells out that the prosecution has tried to build a castle on sandy foundation which is bound to collapse. Having regard to the above features of the case, the probability of the case having done the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her consent cannot be ruled OUt. 13. In view of the infirmities pointed out and the erroneous approach of the trial court in construing the suggestion as an implied admission, on the part of the accused, the conviction as recorded above clearly beats drum of acquittal. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained and the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the accused appellant. His bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed.