JUDGMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is an appeal preferred by solitary appellant against his conviction for the offence under Sections 376/511, 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and one month each under Sections 448 and 323, Indian Penal Code, however, the sentences were to run concurrently, as awarded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar on 12th July, 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1994 arising out of Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 262 of 1993, G.R. Case No. 1296 of 1993. 3. The prosecution case in short as reveal from Exhibit-2, the fardbeyan of informant-cum-victim (PW 6) recorded on 9.8.1993 at 10.30 hours in Railway Hospital in Female Ward is that her husband was working as Carpenter in Railway and family resides in Government quarter. In previous evening i.e. on 8.8.1993 at about 7.00 p.m. while the children were watching television in the house of neighbour the appellant working as Trolley Man with D.E.N.N.F. Railway, Kalihar with evil intention came to the house of informant and pushed her on the bed, started scuffling with and pulling of her sari. The Bangles of the informant were also broken and was intending to commit rape; she dashed him and raised alarm, whereon, Lakhan Mahto, Ram Prasad Yadav, Sarojini Kumari and Sakuntala Devi, respectively, PWs 4, 5, 3 and 1 also arrived. During such course, her sari and blouse were also torn and the appellant while rubbing of her breasts assaulted on chest, back and in between thies and on being unsuccessful in his evil desire snatched the earring causing injury to her and ran away. The husband of the informant had earlier gone to market; on return got her to Railway Hospital for treatment, where the statements were recorded. 4. The police instituted the case and after completing all the legal requirements filed charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under Sections 448, 323 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to substantiate the charges altogether seven witnesses including one Court witness, namely, Shyam Narayan Singh (C.W.-1) were produced by the prosecution besides following documents :- (i) Exhibit -1 :- The injury report of Meena Devi. (ii) Exhibit-2:- Fardbeyan. In order to substantiate the charges altogether seven witnesses including one Court witness, namely, Shyam Narayan Singh (C.W.-1) were produced by the prosecution besides following documents :- (i) Exhibit -1 :- The injury report of Meena Devi. (ii) Exhibit-2:- Fardbeyan. (iii) Exhibit-3:- Formal F.I.R. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of defence. The trial Court on consideration of the materials available on the record convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner aforestated giving rise to instant appeal. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he has falsely been implicated in the case only because of a petty quarrel between two families occurred a few hours before and none of the prosecution witnesses could be able to substantiate the charges, but the appellant stands convicted. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor hesitantly tried to support the findings of the trial Court on the grounds mentioned in the judgment. 6. Out of total seven prosecution witnesses, PW 4, namely, Lakhan Mahto and PW 5, namely, Ram Prasad were tendered for cross-examination and said nothing. PW 1, namely, Sakuntala Devi, is a witness, who claimed to arrive at the house of the informant on her (informant) alarm and found the appellant coming out from there and whatever was done, it was narrated to her by the informant. She appears nothing more than a hearsay witness arriving knowledge from the informant. However, in cross-examination, she admits that at about 5.00 p.m. in the same evening there was some quarrel between the two sides. 7. PW 2, namely, Shivkeshwar Sharma, who is the husband of the informant is also a hearsay witness and knows whatever happened with his wife i.e. the informant by her itself. In cross-examination, he admits about the evening quarrel between the appellant and his wife and daughter on a petty dispute of digging Bamboo. 7. PW 2, namely, Shivkeshwar Sharma, who is the husband of the informant is also a hearsay witness and knows whatever happened with his wife i.e. the informant by her itself. In cross-examination, he admits about the evening quarrel between the appellant and his wife and daughter on a petty dispute of digging Bamboo. PW 3, namely, Sarojani Kumari, is the daughter of the informant, who was watching television with PW 1 at her house and on alarm claimed herself to arrive there with PWs 1 & 5 and found her mother crying and the appellant was pushing her and ultimately escaped from the place and blood was oozing out from her (mother) right ear and her sari and blouse were torn, but when she arrived alongwith PW 1, who simply could see the appellant coming out doing nothing, how it could be possible for this witness to see anything more, what she has narrated. This doubt remained unexplained. 8. PW 6, namely, Meena Devi, is the victim/informant. She stated the prosecution version with a bit detail of causes of injuries sustained by her. In cross-examination, she has given the details of the place of the occurrence and further admits that the appellant was her neighbour residing in adjacent room with his wife and children. In praragraph-4 of the cross-examination, she stated that the house in which she was residing was not allotted to her rather it was earlier vacated by one Indra Kumar Mandal, who handed it over to her. In paragraph-5 of the cross-examination, she has stated about existence of bed (chowki) and other house-hold articles in the room. Further, in paragraph-6, she says that while she was there to took out aatta (wheat powder); the appellant arrived and started assaulting her and pushed her on the bed and was trying to undressed her. No torn garments were handed over to the police. She has denied about the earlier occurrence took place in the evening between the two families, whereas, the other witnesses examined including her husband (PW 2) have said about the same. 9. PW 7, namely, Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sabrawal, has examined the informant and found following simple injuries sustained :- (i) Tenderness in the left side of the chest in the middle zone; no mark, external chest was clear. (ii) Tenderness in right upper arm; no mark, external injury. 9. PW 7, namely, Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sabrawal, has examined the informant and found following simple injuries sustained :- (i) Tenderness in the left side of the chest in the middle zone; no mark, external chest was clear. (ii) Tenderness in right upper arm; no mark, external injury. (iii) Tenderness in right foot; no mark, external injury. (iv) Abrasion, 1/2 x 1/2 cms. on left hand superficial in nature. He proved Exhibit-1 and in cross-examination accepted that such injuries would have been caused on being rubbed against 'bera' or roughed surface. Possibility of the injuries sustained caused during earlier occurrence just about two hours before cannot be ruled out. 10. The Investigating Officer, namely, Shyam Narain' Singh (C.W.-1) examined as Court witness and proved Exhibits-2 & 3. He stated about the place of occurrence and in cross-examination in paragraph-6 stated that there except a chowki with full of dust without any other articles giving sign of its being deserted room found nothing. This further gives death blow to the prosecution version, wherein, as appears an attempt has been made by PW 6 to conceal the previous occurrence in exhibit as well in her statement during trial, which till now could not come out from the dark cloud in spite of efforts made by the prosecution. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above, it is crystal' clear that the prosecution has not come out with clean hands and tried to conceal the earlier occurrence taken place on the same day perhaps just to conceal the fact that the injuries sustained by the informant would have beeninf1icted during that course and just in order to give a deep colour to the occurrence and make the offence more graver with a different story lodged the case. 12. Thus, in the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court is not at all sustainable; consequently, it is set-aside. The appeal is hereby allowed. The appellant, namely, Dinesh Kamti, is set free from the liability of bail bonds furnished on his behalf. Appeal allowed.