JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted Under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years by a judgment dated 7.8.1997 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 586 of 1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W.4 Roshan Khatoon is that on 1.9.1996 at about 8 P.M. when she had gone to ease herself out side her house towards the Kenal at the lonely place, Appellant allegedly committed rape upon her in the paddy fields on the point of dagger. She raised an alarm, at which P.W.2 and P.W.5 came there and saw the Appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence. She then returned home and narrated the factum of occurrence to her father-in-law (P.W.3) and husband (P.W.2). 3. During trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer, whereas P.W.6 Usha Das is the lady doctor, who examined Roshan Khatoon (P.W.4). P.W.5 Azazul Haque, P.W.3 Abdul Rahman Mian, P.W.2 Abdul Manan and P.W.1 Abdul Hasan Ansari are the supporting witnesses, whereas P.W.4 Roshan Khatoon is the prosecutrix herself. During trial when P.W.4 was examined, she stated that on the alleged date of occurrence when she had gone to ease herself out side her house towards the canal at the lonely place, Appellant forcibly committed rape upon her. She stated that she had been raped on the point of dagger and when she raised alarm Abdul Hasan Ansari (P.W.1) and Ajajul Haque (P.W.5) came there and saw the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. In her cross examination she stated that she did not raise alarm when she saw the Appellant but thereafter raised an alarm and when she was returning she met P.W.2 and P.W.5 and told them that the Appellant had caught hold of her hand. In effect she demolished the entire factum that the Appellant had committed rape upon her. P.W.2 stated that on the alleged date of occurrence he had seen Appellant coming from the southern side of the house of the informant and has merely stated that he had seen the Appellant at the place of occurrence. In effect she demolished the entire factum that the Appellant had committed rape upon her. P.W.2 stated that on the alleged date of occurrence he had seen Appellant coming from the southern side of the house of the informant and has merely stated that he had seen the Appellant at the place of occurrence. P.W.2 Abdul Manan, who is the husband and P.W.3 Abdul Rahman Mian, who is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix have supported the prosecution case that Roshan Khatoon, the informant, had come after the occurrence and informed them that the Appellant had committed rape upon her. However, P.W.7 the Investigating Officer stated that during investigation he learnt that there was some money transaction between the husband of the prosecutrix and the Appellant in which there was a dispute. 4. The defence also brought the document on record as Exhibit A, which was the statement of the prosecutrix in another complaint that in fact she had instituted the present case at the instance of her husband. P.W.6, the lady doctor, who was then posted as C.A.S., Bettiah, examined the victim on the very next day and found no injury external or internal on her private parts nor any spermatozoa was found and, therefore, she was of the opinion that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse. It is noteworthy that the prosecutrix was more than 19 years of age on the date of occurrence as also that she was examined by the doctor the very next day and, therefore, the negative report by the doctor in regard to sexual intercourse is relevant. 5. Considering the entire conspectus of the case and the fact that apart from oral evidence of P.W.4 which stood contradicted in cross examination and further that there is no medical support with regard to the occurrence, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to the Appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 7.8.1997 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 586 of 1996 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.