JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. : This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2000, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1998, whereby said court has convicted the appellants namely Om Prakash and Pappu under section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and under section 3(2)(V)( of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Each of the convicts is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and imprisonment for life under section 3(2)(V) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellants, and Shri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW1 Saroj is a member of Scheduled Caste, and an illiterate lady. Her husband was bitten by a dog. PW1 Saroj along with her sister in law Kidi (a dumb lady) had gone to take some soil for the treatment of her husband on 23.02.1998 to village Ramsahay wala. On her return, when she reached near school, accused/appellants Om Prakash and Pappu, who were in a drunken state, dragged Saroj towards the sugarcane field, and they committed rape on her, one after another. On the next day, PW1 Saroj reported the incident to Village Pradhan Vijay Ramola @ Madan Lal, and member of Kshetra Panchayat, Mangal Singh. The Village Pradhan called Panchayat on 26.02.1998, in which accused Pappu was given shoe beating on complaint of Saroj (PW1), but accused Om Prakash did not turn up. Thereafter on 28.02.1998, complainant (PW1) gave First Information Report (Ex. A1) at police station Sahaspur against the two accused. On the basis of which crime no. 82 of 1998 was registered against the two accused relating to offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., and one relating to offence punishable under section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigation started by Sub Inspector Chote Lal Tamta, and later transferred to Deputy Superintendent Police Ramanand Gautam. A victim was sent for medical examination on 28.02.1998. Dr. Renuka Naithani examined her, but no opinion regarding rape was given by her, in her report (Ex. A4). The investigation started by Sub Inspector Chote Lal Tamta, and later transferred to Deputy Superintendent Police Ramanand Gautam. A victim was sent for medical examination on 28.02.1998. Dr. Renuka Naithani examined her, but no opinion regarding rape was given by her, in her report (Ex. A4). The Investigating Officer after completing of the investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ex. A-10) against the two accused namely Om Prakash and Pappu, for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 376 and 506 I.P.C. and one punishable under section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial,. The IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, to whom the case was transferred, on 05.03.1999, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., and 506 read with section 34 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3(1)(II) and under section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The two accused/appellants Om Prakash and Pappu pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Saroj Devi (victim), PW2 Magan Lal (husband of the victim), PW3 Munni Devi and PW4 Pawan Singh. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded same to be false. They further pleaded that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found the two accused/appellants guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and one punishable under section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After hearing on sentence, each of the convicts was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. and imprisonment for life under section 3(2)(V) I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 21.05.2000 and 27.01.2000, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1998, this appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court by the convicts on 15.02.2000, where it was admitted on 17.02.2000. 500/- under section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. and imprisonment for life under section 3(2)(V) I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 21.05.2000 and 27.01.2000, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1998, this appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court by the convicts on 15.02.2000, where it was admitted on 17.02.2000. The appeal is received by this court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention here that neither Investigating Officer was examined by the prosecution in this case nor the Medical Officer who examined the victim was produced in the court to adduce her evidence. It appears that the defence counsel admitted the genuineness of the documents and the same were exhibited. 6. The Medico Legal Report (Ex. A4) was prepared by Dr. Renuka Naithani on 28.02.1998, at about 5.15 pm shows following observation after local examination : No marks of injury seen on her private parts. Vagina hymen old torned. No fresh vaginal injury seen. Vagina admits two fingers loose. The Medical Office had opined in her report (Ex. A4) that no definite opinion regarding rape can be given. Dr. Renuka Naithani prepared report (Ex. A6) 19.03.1998, in which it is mentioned that after examination vaginal smear, sperms were not found and no definite opinion regarding rape can be given. 7. We are conscious of the facts that in the case of rape of a married woman, the Medical report as to torned hymen has little importance. In the circumstances we have to see oral testimony of victim and its truthfulness to come to the conclusion whether rape was committed on her or not by the accused. PW1 Saroj Devi has stated that on the day of incident she along with Kidi (not examined) had gone to take some soil from Ramsahay wala for treatment of her husband, who was bitten by a dog. The witness further stated that on their report that the two women met accused/appellants Om Prakash and Pappu, who dragged her (PW1) towards sugarcane field. According to this witness she was subjected to rape by the two accused one after another. The witness further stated that on their report that the two women met accused/appellants Om Prakash and Pappu, who dragged her (PW1) towards sugarcane field. According to this witness she was subjected to rape by the two accused one after another. She has further stated that initially she reported to Village Pradhan through his wife, and Pradhan called Pappu who was given shoe beating but Om Prakash did not turn up. Thereafter, she lodged First Information Report (Ex. A1) at police station. 8. On close scrutiny on the statement of PW1 Saroj Devi we find her testimony unnatural and full of doubts. She has stated in her examination that when the two accused took her towards sugarcane field, Kidi was accompanying her, she had gone towards village but PW2 Magan Lal (her husband) says that Kidi and Saroj came back together. Not only this, PW1 Saroj says that after the incident she reached back in the village at about midnight, but PW2 Magan Lal (husband of Saroj) says his wife came back immediately after sunset. Apart from this, there are other material contradictions in the statements of PW1 Saroj Devi and PW2 Magan Lal. In cross examination, PW1 Saroj Devi has stated that after the incident she bled and her clothes got blood stained. On the other hand, PW2 Magan Lal (husband of the victim) has stated that there was no blood in the clothes of his wife nor was any bleeding in her body. 9. There are other material contradictions in the statement of witnesses who got examined by prosecution which create reasonable doubts in the prosecution story. PW3 Munni Devi, the member of Village Panchayat says that in the Panchayat accused Pappu confessed his guilt but PW2 Magan lal states neither Pappu nor Om Prakash accepted their guilt. Not only this, PW3 Munni Devi member of the Village Panchayat states that it was Saroj who gave beating with her Chappals to Papppu in the Panchayat but PW1 Saroj states that it was Village Pradhan who gave beating with Chappals to Pappu. As such the entire prosecution story appears to be full of contradictions leading to reasonable doubt in prosecution story. 10. As such the entire prosecution story appears to be full of contradictions leading to reasonable doubt in prosecution story. 10. It is strange that PW1 Saroj was not all alone when she says that she was dragged by the two accused but there appears no efforts to resist on the part of Saroj Devi or her sister in law Kidi, particularly when the two accused were not armed with any weapon. Medical report as already discussed above also does not corroborate the statement of PW1 Saroj Devi that she suffered injuries and bled. 11. Having re assessed the entire evidence on record we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 376 or the offence punishable under section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against either of the accused. That being so, they are entitled to benefit on reasonable doubt. In our opinion, the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record. 12. Therefore the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2000 and 27.01.2000, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1998 recording the conviction and sentence against accused/appellants Om Prakash and Pappu relating to offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989, is hereby set aside. The two appellants are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Lower court record be sent back.