JUDGMENT : - The appellant in these appeals stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to each pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It appears that this Court had directed the expeditious hearing of these appeals in the light of the fact that appellant Keshao s/o Sadashiv Zalwade in Criminal Appeal No. 126/2009, appellants Ratiram s/o Punaram Choudhary, Maroti s/o Laxman Dadmal and Arun s/o Tubuam Choudhari in Criminal Appeal No. 259/2009 and appellant Gurudas Domaji Gajbhiye in Criminal Appeal No. 275/2009 are in Jail. 2. Since these appeals arise from the same judgment of the trial Court, i.e. the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, dated 21/1/2009 in Sessions Case No. 128/ 2005, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of these appeals may briefly be stated thus: P.W.9 Choure, who was attached to Police Station, Chimur as A.P.I., recorded the complaint of PW.2 Kalpana on 17/5/2005 at Exh. 83. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, P.W.9 A.P.I. Choure registered an offence vide Clime No. 32/2005 under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The printed First Information Report is at Exh. 84. On the next day, copy of the F.I.R. was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chimur. Upon registration of the offence, P.W.9 A.P.I. Choure along with Police staff rushed to the scene of the offence for arresting the accused and arrested all the accused, who were found at their respective houses and were taken into custody. He returned back to the Police Station and drew arrest panchanamas of the accused in the presence of panchas at Exhs. 124 to 129. The prosecutrix - P.W. 2 Kalpana was referred for medical examination and was examined by P.W.l Dr. Nemade. P.W.l Dr. Nemade examined P.W.2 Kalpana on the basis of the requisition at Exh. 48 and on her examination, noticed absence of any injury on PW.2 Kalpana. She issued a certificate at Exh. 49. In respect of the query as to whether rape has been committed on PW.2 Kalpana, at Exh. 49, she has opined that exact opinion cannot be given. Nemade examined P.W.2 Kalpana on the basis of the requisition at Exh. 48 and on her examination, noticed absence of any injury on PW.2 Kalpana. She issued a certificate at Exh. 49. In respect of the query as to whether rape has been committed on PW.2 Kalpana, at Exh. 49, she has opined that exact opinion cannot be given. In the morning of the next day, P.W.9 Choure proceeded to the scene of the offence and drew the scene of the offence panchanama, which was in the agricultural field of accused Keshav, in the presence of P.W.5 Bhauji and P.W.8 Kishore. The scene of the offence panchanama is at Exh. 93. At the scene of the offence, broken pieces of bangles and safety pin were found, which were seized vide seizure memo at Exh. 94. The accused were referred for medical examination along with requisitions at Exhs. 98 to 103. The accused came to be examined by PW.6 Dr. Panchbhai. The clothes of the accused came to be seized vide seizure memos at Exhs. 54 to 65. Further investigation was entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who upon completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants. 4. The trial Court vide Exh. 10 framed a charge against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses. The defence of the appellants was of denial. The trial Court upon appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforestated. 5. The entire case against the appellants revolves around the evidence of P.W2 Kalpana, P.W3 Bandu (so called brother of P.W2 Kalpana) and P.W.4 Bhimrao, Police Patil of the village. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the respondent, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of these three witnesses. 6. P.W.2 Kalpana states that she was residing with her husband at the time of incident and had two children, namely, Rahul and Reena. She states that she had come to village Sawargaon with P.W.3 Bandu as cousin of Bandu was to be married at village Sawargaon. 6. P.W.2 Kalpana states that she was residing with her husband at the time of incident and had two children, namely, Rahul and Reena. She states that she had come to village Sawargaon with P.W.3 Bandu as cousin of Bandu was to be married at village Sawargaon. She states that she was treating Bandu as her brother, who at the relevant time was residing at village Madnapur. She states that she and Bandu reached Sawargaon at about 3 p.m. and went to the house of Bandu. She states that accused saw her at the time of marriage. PW.2 Kalpana has categorically stated that the accused were unknown to her. She states that at about 4 p.m. she and Bandu had gone to the field of Bandu and after seeing the field, were sitting in the same field near the well At about 7 p.m. accused no. 1 Ratiram and accused no.4 Vasanta arrived there. They caught and pulled her and so, she shouted loudly. Accused no. 1 Ratiram slapped Bandu and, therefore, Bandu went to call the Police Patil. Thereafter other accused also arrived there and all the six accused forcibly took her to another field and placed her on the heap of the paddy fodder. The accused thereafter denuded her and while some accused held her, the remaining accused performed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Therefore, according to P.W. 2 Kalpana, she was raped repeatedly by each of the accused. She claims that her clothes were disarrayed and she had been denuded. She thereafter states that she was unconscious and P.W.3 Bandu and P.W.4 Bhimrao, Police Patil arrived there and offered water to her. After drinking water, she wore her clothes and then went to the Police Station for lodging a report. She states that she had lodged the report at Exh. 83. She has also claimed that she was not knowing the accused either by name or by face prior to the incident. In cross-examination, omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that the accused had seen her at the time of marriage. Similarly, omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that Bandu was working as an agricultural labourer at Madnapur. She has then admitted that she did not know as to whether the field belongs to Bandu or not. Similarly, omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that Bandu was working as an agricultural labourer at Madnapur. She has then admitted that she did not know as to whether the field belongs to Bandu or not. She has stated that Bandu had asked her to accompany to his field for seeing the field and they had gone there on foot. She has further admitted as true that the accused were kept present before her and then her statement was recorded on the next day. Omission has been duly proved that accused no. 1 Ratiram and accused no.4 Vasanta had arrived there first at about 7 p.m. and that they had caught and pulled her. Omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that she had shouted loudly and that accused Ratiram had slapped P.W.3 Bandu. Omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that all the persons lifted her and took her to the heap of paddy fodder. The omission is, however, restricted only to number, i.e. six. Similarly, omission has been proved in respect of overt act of the accused of catching her hand. This witness then makes a very startling admission in the cross-examination, which is reproduced below : "Police Patil informed the names of the accused to me, so 1 named the accused when my statement was recorded by Police." In further cross-examination, she has admitted that only four persons had committed rape on her. She has also admitted that at present she was residing at Nagpur as her aunt had driven her out of her house. She has further stated that her husband has deserted her and her children were residing with her husband. 7. P.W.3 Bandu, the so called brother of P.W.2 Kalpana, states that she used to treat Kalpana as his sister and he along with Kalpana had arrived at Sawargaon for attending the marriage and had reached Sawargaon at about 3 p.m. He states that first they had gone to his house and after resting in the house for sometime, had gone to the agricultural field at about 5 p.m. Curiously, this witness does not state about attending the marriage at all though they had come ostensibly for attending the marriage. He then states that both of them inspected the field and the crops standing in the field and had gone to the well situated in the field of accused no. 3 Keshav for drinking water. He then states that thereafter they were proceeding back to the village and five accused reached there, whose names, according to him, were Maroti, Ratiram, Gurudas, Vasant and Arun. He states that accused Keshav did not arrive there at that time. The accused pushed P.W.2 Kalpana though P.W.3 Bandu had obstructed them. He states that accused Ratiram also pushed him, so he proceeded to the village and on the way, he noticed an abandoned bicycle and he went to village Sawargaon riding that bicycle. On reaching the house of Police Patil, he narrated the incident to the Police Patil and along with Police Patil, reached back the scene of the incident. He then states that when they had reached the scene of the incident, he heard the voice of the accused from behind the heap of fodder and the Police Patil, therefore, called out to those persons. On hearing the voice of the Police Patil, the persons behind the fodder heap fled away. He has stated that "we did not see those persons while running". He states that when he went near P.W.2 Kalpana, he noticed that she was lying on her back with her clothes disarrayed. Thereafter she was taken to the Police Station where she lodged her complaint. The Public Prosecutor got declared this witness as hostile and had crossexamined this witness. Nothing of substance emerges from the crossexamination on behalf of the Public Prosecutor. 8. In cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, P.W.3 Bandu has admitted as true that no agricultural land stands in his name at village Sawargaon. He has, however, volunteered and stated that the land is in the name of his father. He claims that he had informed the Police Patil, the names of accused Ratiram, Maroti, Vasant, Gurudas and Arun, who had come to the field. He claims to have informed the Police Patil that accused Ratiram had pushed him. He has, of course, denied the suggestion that he had illicit relations with P.W.2 Kalpana even prior to the date of the incident and it was on account of the said illicit relations that her husband had driven her out of his house. He claims to have informed the Police Patil that accused Ratiram had pushed him. He has, of course, denied the suggestion that he had illicit relations with P.W.2 Kalpana even prior to the date of the incident and it was on account of the said illicit relations that her husband had driven her out of his house. He has admitted as true that there was darkness when he proceeded to village and had gone to the Police Patil. Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that when he and Kalpana were proceeding towards the village the accused reached there. Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated that all the five culprits pushed P.W.2 Kalpana. Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement about hearing of voice of the accused from behind the heap of fodder and the Police Patil giving a call to the persons and on hearing the voice of the Police Patil, the assailants fleeing away. He has denied the suggestion that the names of the accused were disclosed to the prosecutrix by the Police-Patil. He states that he had informed PW.2 Kalpana the names of the accused. In further cross-examination, he has admitted as true that there were no standing crops in the field at that time. 9. PWA Bhimrao, Police Patil, states that at about 7 p.m., P.W.3 Bandu had awakened him and informed him that somebody took his cousin sister. P.WA Bhimrao further states that he along with Bandu reached the field of accused no.3 Keshav on the bicycle of Bandu within fifteen minutes. As soon as they entered the field, they noticed some persons running away. P.WA Bhimrao has admitted that he could not state how many accused were seen running away. He states that thereafter he had noticed a lady lying on her back with her clothes in disarray. He states that on her request, water was given to her and thereafter she was brought to the Police Station where she lodged her report. He states that Bandu had informed the names of the accused in the Police Station. The names disclosed by Bandu were Ratiram, Maroti and Gurudas. He has then stated that Bandu had disclosed the names of the accused for the first time in the Police Station. He states that Bandu had informed the names of the accused in the Police Station. The names disclosed by Bandu were Ratiram, Maroti and Gurudas. He has then stated that Bandu had disclosed the names of the accused for the first time in the Police Station. He states that Bandu had also disclosed the name of accused Arun at the Police Station. He further states that he had accompanied the Police for arresting the accused, who were arrested from their respective houses. In cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, he has admitted that he had seen the accused running from the distance of about 150 feet. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants have urged before me that no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the testimony of P.W.2 Kalpana vis-a-vis identity of the accused, who are alleged to have committed rape on her. The learned Additional Public Prosecutors have supported the finding recorded by the trial Court and have urged for dismissal of the appeals. 11. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.2 Kalpana, it emerges that the accused were unknown to her. Omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that she had seen the accused in the marriage function. In fact, P.W.3 Bandu does not state anything about attending the manage. The accused were not known to P.W.2 Kalpana and the time, which is stated by P.W.2 Kalpana and P.W3 Bandu, i.e. of 7 p.m., is by way of approximation. P.W.3 Bandu claims that after anival of the accused while he was going to call Police Patil, there was darkness. In any event, assuming that forcible sexual intercourse had been performed with P.W2 Kalpana by some persons, the moot question still remains unanswered, i.e. the identity of those persons, who m-e alleged to have committed rape on P.W.2 Kalpana. If P.W.3 Bandu was aware about identity of the accused, it is curious that he does not disclose the names of those persons to the Police Patil when he had narrated the incident. In fact, P.WA Bhimrao states that P.W.3 Bandu had only disclosed to him that somebody had taken his cousin. P.W.3 Bandu had not disclosed the names of any of the accused to the Police Patil when he had gone to call the Police Patil. In fact, P.WA Bhimrao states that P.W.3 Bandu had only disclosed to him that somebody had taken his cousin. P.W.3 Bandu had not disclosed the names of any of the accused to the Police Patil when he had gone to call the Police Patil. This obviously leads to one inference and that is P.W.3 Bandu was not aware about the identity of the accused. In other words, the accused were unknown to P. W.3 Bandu. It the identity of the accused was known to P.W.3 Bandu, 1 do not find any reason whatsoever for P.W.3 Bandu not to disclose the names of the accused to the Police Patil. In fact, this conduct of P.W3 Bandu is inexplicable as to why he did not disclose the names of the accused to P.WA Police Patil. Be that as it may, even the Police Patil claims that he was not aware about identity of the accused as he had only seen an indistinct blur of the persons running away from the scene of the offence and that too, from a distance of about 150 feet. P.W.3 Bandu has also claimed that when he had arrived at the scene of the offence, the offenders fled away. The names of the accused were disclosed for the first time when P.W.3 Bandu informed the same to the Police. The first information report was scribed after the accused were produced in the Police Station and this is what is claimed by P.W.2 Kalpana. From all these circumstances, the moot question as to who the offenders were, remains unanswered though the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. According to me, this issue goes to the very root of the matter and if there is no satisfactory evidence as to the identity of the accused as the persons, who had committed forcible sexual intercourse with PW. 2 Kalpana, the conviction of the appellants would be wholly unjustified. If P.W.2 Kalpana claims to have seen the accused and in the background of what I have stated above, it was incumbent for the prosecution to have conducted a test identification parade in order to test the veracity of the identification of the accused by P.W.2 Kalpana for the first time in the Court. Even that has not been done by the prosecution. 12. Even that has not been done by the prosecution. 12. The prosecution thus, has utterly failed to lead reliable evidence, which would inspire confidence of the Court that it was the accused, who had committed forcible sexual intercourse with PW.2 Kalpana. The medical evidence belies any sexual intercourse being done by six accused as P.W.2 Kalpana was a married lady. The Doctor, of course, does not rule out such a possibility. There is a total absence of any injury on the genitals or on the person of P.W.2 Kalpana. That can obviously be explained by the fact that P.W.2 Kalpana may have been held by the other accused while one of the accused committed rape on her. Even the finding of the Chemical Analyser, as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has very candidly put it, does not assist the prosecution at all. 13. Thus, from the evidence I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, according to me, the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly. Criminal Appeal Nos. 126/2009, 179/2009, 259/2009 and 2751 2009 are allowed and the con viction and sentence of the appellants is hereby 4uashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellants, be refunded to them. Since appellant Keshav s/o Sadashiv Zalwade in Criminal Appeal No. 126/2009 is in Jail, he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Similarly, since appellants Ratiram s/o Punaram Choudhary, Maroti s/o Laxman Dadmal and Arun s/o Tulsiram Choudhary in Criminal Appeal No.259/2009 and appellant Gurudas s/o Domaji Gajbhiye in Criminal Appeal No. 275/2009 are in Jail, they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Bail bond of appellant Vasanta s/o Keshav Darange in Criminal Appeal No. 179/2009 stands cancelled. Fee payable to Shri R.M. Patwardhan, learned Counsel appointed for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.275/2009, is quantified at rupees three thousand. Appeals allowed.