JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR, J. 1. On repeated call, nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to argue this case. 2. On the request of the Court, Mr. P.C. Sinha argued this case as Amicus Curie. 2-A. The Instant appeal is directed against die judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2002 and order of sentence dated 08.02.2002 passed in S.T. No. 169 of 1993 by Shri P.K. Srivastava, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, by which judgment he found the appellant guilty under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years u/s 376 of the I.P.C., and R.I. for three years u/s 452 of the I.P.C., both the sentences have been run concurrently. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that except the evidence of the victim of P.W. 1 there is no evidence in this case. Neither Doctor not Investigating Officer has been examined. The victim lady herself has also retracted from her statement and after compromise, her husband has also net supported the prosecution case. In that view of the matter the conviction of the appellant is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and stated that the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 is sufficient to convict he appellant and he has rightly been convicted. 5. Alter hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the victim, P.W. 1, Mala Devi, on 13.10.1989 stating therein that about 13 to 14 days back on Monday dated 18.09.1989 in the afternoon when she was sitting in her varandah, Naina Mochi came and caught hold her from back thereafter, he stated touching her body and private parts. He also kissed her, but she pushed him. Again he caught her and took her breast in his hand. She tried to push him again and again, but she failed to push him because lie was strong muscle man. He had given a watch to her, but she had thrown his watch and she did not accept his watch. Thereafter, he fled always from there to take his watch. She tried to push him again and again, but she failed to push him because lie was strong muscle man. He had given a watch to her, but she had thrown his watch and she did not accept his watch. Thereafter, he fled always from there to take his watch. On that day her gotni along with three years son went to take bath in the river and her bhaisur and husband went to do work at chasnala. Before twelve days of date of occurrence her mother-in-law went to her son at Bokaro. Even before this occurrence, whenever she used to go to fetch water at the tube well, Naina Mochi used to show his thumb and hug her, but due to social prestige she did not say. After two days of date of occurrence i.e. on 21.09.1989 at 11.00 A.M. when the railway sairan was making sound he entered her house while she was cooking food and caught her from behind thereafter, he put down on the floor and tore of her sari and stuffed it in her mouth, she resisted much. Thereafter, he lifted a spring knife towards her chest and told her that if she would shout then he will kill her and lifted her sari upward and committed sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that accused gave her twenty five rupees. On that day she was alone in her house, her husband and bhisur had gone to do work for hazari and her gotni along with three years son went to bow paddy crops and her mother-in-law was in Bokaro. After four to five days her mother-in-law came then she told about the occurrence to her mother-in-law. Thereafter, her mother-in-law brought her to the police station. 5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Sections 376, 341, 342, 452, 323, 500 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case against the accused u/s 376, 354, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Sections 376, 341, 342, 452, 323, 500 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case against the accused u/s 376, 354, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, after taking cognizance learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and subsequently, the case was tried by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, who found the appellant guilty under Sections 376 and 452 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. It is important to note that in the course of trial the parties compromise the case and a joint compromise petition was filed in the Court on 12.12.1995 stating therein that both the parties are neighbour. Both the parties rue adults and both of the in have their spouse and children and the case was filed due to some disputes with regard to the personal business. Therefore, prosecution had taken no interest in pursing the case. 7. In that view of the matter only five witnesses have been examinee by the prosecution. P.W.1, Mala Devi, the informant of the case. P.W.2, Shanti Devi, mother-in-law of the informant. P.W.3, Suresh Pasi, husband of the informant. P.W.4, Ram Prasad, is advocate clerk and is a formal witness, who has proved the formal F.I.R. P.W.5, Mahivar Mahatha, is advocate clerk and is a formal witness, who has proved the signature and hand writing on Medical report by Dr. O.P. Arya, Exhibit-2. 8. Neither Doctor nor Investigating Officer has been examined nor the case was supported by the husband of the victim. In that view of the matter there are only two witnesses P.W.1, Mala Devi, the informant of the case and P.W.2, Shanti Devi, mother-in-law of the informant. The case is supported by P.W.1 Mala Devi and in her examination she has tried to support her case in the fardbeyan and her re-examination she admitted that she comprised the case without any pressure from other side on her own free will. The case was also supported by her mother-in-law P.W. 2 Shanti Devi, but her husband PW. The case is supported by P.W.1 Mala Devi and in her examination she has tried to support her case in the fardbeyan and her re-examination she admitted that she comprised the case without any pressure from other side on her own free will. The case was also supported by her mother-in-law P.W. 2 Shanti Devi, but her husband PW. 3 Suresh Pasi, has tender witnesses and stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and they do not want to proceed with the case. 9. In that view of the matter no witnesses have supported the prosecution case. From the fardbeyan and also the statement of the victim P.W.1 Mala Devi, it appears that they were closely known to each other from before and also stated in fardbeyan that the incident on 18.09.1989, in which she stated that the accused caught her and kissed her and even after holding her breast and her private parts she only asked him to leave and he left. She did not report either to her mother-in-law or her husband and even to the police also. After two days of the previous date of occurrence i.e. on 21.09.1989, the same incident also happened but she did not reported to the husband and after 13 days she reported about the matter only to her mother-in-law and the fardbeyan was made, which also appears that the prosecution case is doubtful. In that view of the matter, benefit of doubt is given to the appellant and he his acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2002 and order of sentence dated 08.02.2002 passed in S.T. No. 169 of 1993 by Shri P.K. Srivastava, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, is set aside Since, the appellant is on bail, he is released from the bondage of bail.