JUDGMENT : Raja Elango, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the order, dated 28.07.2006, passed by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (P.O.A.) Act–cum–VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2005, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.06.2004 evening while P.W.1 was returning home from her fields, on the way in the limits of Vallur village at about 19:00 hours near the fields of Arella Narsaiah, the accused came in opposite direction and asked her to sleep with him and offered to provide silver kadas to her hands and legs. When she refused and proceeding ahead, he caught hold of her saree and pushed her on the ground, removed his pancha and underwear, closed her mouth, threatened her and forcibly committed rape on her. Her right hand bangles were broken and she sustained scratch injuries to her hand. The victim caught hold of the shirt collar of the accused and dragged towards road. But the accused escaped from her clutches. She raised hue and cries. P. Chinna Hanmanthu came there on D.B. Cart from Vallur and he rescued her. Thereby, she reported the matter to police. On the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jadcherla registered a case in Crime No. 109 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of S.C. and S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989. The victim was sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 and M.Os. 1 to 5 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of entire evidence on record, convicted the accused as aforementioned. 5. This Court perused the records and heard the arguments. 6. These type of cases can be decided on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 1 to 5 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of entire evidence on record, convicted the accused as aforementioned. 5. This Court perused the records and heard the arguments. 6. These type of cases can be decided on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. P.W.1, who is aged about 36 years, deposed that while she was returning from the filed, the accused came in the opposite direction and invited her for sexual intercourse and offered silver anklets and silver hand kadas to her. When she refused, she was taken to nearby lands and he committed rape on her. She further deposed that she dragged the accused from the place of occurrence to the main road. Then she informed the same to one Hanumanthu. Meanwhile, the accused flew from her hands. On reaching the house of Sarpanch, she informed the incident to the Sarpanch, in turn she was asked to lodge a complaint. One of the persons known to her scribed the complaint and the same was given to the police on the same day night. P.W.2, who is none other than the husband of P.W.1, deposed the fact that his wife was examined by the Doctor. The other witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. More particularly, one Hanumanthu, whom P.W.1 alleged that the incident was immediately informed. In the present case, it was suggested by the appellant that the occurrence took place with the consent. The same was refused by the victim lady. 7. After perusal of the records and the evidence on record, the following discrepancies are noted by this Court: 1. Even though P.W.1 lodged a complaint in the night, on the same date of occurrence, she was not sent to the Doctor for medical examination. She was allowed to go home and on the next day morning she was subjected to medical examination. Admittedly, she is a married lady and further she was allowed to be there in her home. The Doctor's evidence suggests that she had intercourse. In such a grave offence, when the complainant reached the home after the occurrence, it is the duty of the investigating officer to send her for medical examination to substantiate the claim of P.W.1. 2. Admittedly, she is a married lady and further she was allowed to be there in her home. The Doctor's evidence suggests that she had intercourse. In such a grave offence, when the complainant reached the home after the occurrence, it is the duty of the investigating officer to send her for medical examination to substantiate the claim of P.W.1. 2. Secondly, the evidence of P.W.2 in the cross-examination is that he has not returned the amount to the father of the accused. It is suggested to P.W.1 that her husband P.W.2 has received a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the accused father and he has not returned the same, which was accepted by P.W.2. 3. Thirdly, P.W.1 also deposed before the Court that she has taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the accused one week prior to her deposition of evidence before the Court. She stated that out of her earnings she has received the said amount of Rs.10,000/-, but the evidence of P.W.2, husband of P.W.1, is totally contradictory in nature. He admits that they received Rs.10,000/- and that they also demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from the accused. The said evidence shows the character of P.W.1 and her husband P.W.2. It is highly improbable and unbelievable that the appellant committed rape on her. In a grave offence of this nature, the evidence adduced by P.W.1 cannot be believed as the said evidence does not inspire the confidence of this Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of the available evidence. 8. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be returned to them.