JUDGMENT Both the appeals are being decided by common judgment and order as they arise out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 73/2010 on 20th February, 2013. The appellant Shahinsha @ Raju Trimbak Todase in Criminal Appeal No.157/20 13 (hereinafter referred to as "appellant No.1") has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Bhawani Haridas Dhurve in Criminal Appeal No.204/2013 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Bhuri Dhurve, aged about 20 years, was staying at Kajleshwar in their house situated little away from the township of Kajleshwar. Her husband was doing business of herbs. He was, therefore, required to go out of station frequently. It is the case of prosecution that husband of the complainant had gone out of station about eight days prior to the date of incident. The incident had occurred on the night intervening 25th July, 2010 and 26th July, 2010. The complainant along with her sister-in-law Naraswati Dhurve (sister of husband of the complainant) was at home. It is alleged that both the appellants had entered the house of the complainant around midnight. It is further alleged that appellant No.2 took away Naraswati out of house and appellant No.1 had committed sexual intercourse with the complainant by force at the point of knife. It is alleged that the complainant attempted to shout. However, appellant No.1 had threatened the complainant that if she attempted to shout, she would be killed. It is how appellant No.1 had succeeded in committing rape on the complainant. The complainant has further stated in her statement that while Naraswati was outside the house with appellant No.2, she could succeed in rescuing herself and made hue and cry. In the result, neighbours of the complainant namely Fuldas Dhurve, Gurudas Dhurve and Vanita Gurudas Dhurve reached the house of the complainant. Both the appellants, therefore, ran away. Husband of the complainant was intimated and he came next morning. 3. The matter was reported to police at about 7.00 p.m. on 26th July, 2010. First Information Report for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the police. Both the appellants, therefore, ran away. Husband of the complainant was intimated and he came next morning. 3. The matter was reported to police at about 7.00 p.m. on 26th July, 2010. First Information Report for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the police. During the course of investigation, clothes of appellant No.1 and the complainant were seized. Knife was also recovered during investigation. The complainant was referred to the Medical Officer for medial examination. The Medical Officer was unable to give definite opinion as to whether the complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse. No foreign body was detected on nail clippings of the complainant. Vaginal swab were taken and sample of pubic hairs was collected. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and report. The Forensic Science Laboratory had reported that two small stains of semen were detected on full pant (trouser) of the appellant No. 1. No semen was detected on saree, pettycoat, blouse and brassier of the complainant. No semen was detected on her undergamlents. Semen was also not detected on the bedsheet. Semen was not detected in the vaginal swab and on pubic hair. 4. The case came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. Both the appellants had pleaded not guilty to the charge and had claimed to be tried. The respondent had examined three witnesses in support of its case. P.W.l-Bhuri Dhurve is the complainant. P.W.2-Naraswati Dhurve is sister-in-law of the complainant. P. W.3-Suresh Gangre is the Police Officer who had investigated the case. 5. P. W.2 has not supported the prosecution case. She has clearly stated in her evidence that she did not know as to whether the appellants had visited their house on the day of incident. She had denied all the suggestions given to her in the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor after declaring her hostile. As such the case of prosecution was mainly based on the evidence of P.W.1. The learned trial Court believed the evidence of P.W.1 and recorded the conviction as stated above. The learned Counsel Shri N.A. Badar appearing on behalf of appellant No.1 and learned Counsel Shri S.D. Chande appearing on behalf of appellant No.2 have submitted that both the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial Court believed the evidence of P.W.1 and recorded the conviction as stated above. The learned Counsel Shri N.A. Badar appearing on behalf of appellant No.1 and learned Counsel Shri S.D. Chande appearing on behalf of appellant No.2 have submitted that both the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that no incident as alleged had ever occurred. Shri N.A. Badar has submitted that the husband of P.W. 1 wanted to take revenge from appellant No.1 due to old enmity. 6. Apart from the arguments submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, what is necessary to be stated here is that the prosecution is unable to explain as to why P. W2, who was staying with P. W I and was sister of husband of P.W.1, had not supported the prosecution case. What is pertinent to note is that though P.W.1 has stated that she had gone to the house of Van ita Dhurve after the incident and she had stayed there whole night due to fear, said Vanita Dhurve has not been examined. The witnesses whose names have been stated in the First Information Report and who had visited the house of P. W.l when P.W.2 had allegedly made hue and cry, have not been examined for which there is no explanation. 7. No doubt, conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code can be based only on the oral testimony of the prosecutrix if it is believable. In the present case, had the evidence of P.W.1 been free from doubt, the same could have been relied upon to convict appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences. In my opinion, even without going through the cross-examination of P. W. 1, the evidence of P.W.1 in examination-in-chief does not appear to be believable. P.W.1 has nowhere stated that she had ever resisted the attempt made by appellant No. 1. It is noted that the Medical Officer did not find any foreign body in the nail clippings of P.W.1. 8. As far as cross-examination of P. W I is concerned, it is admitted by her that mother of Gokuldas Dhurve, who was her neighbour, had expired on the same night and villagers were visiting his house frequently. It is noted that the Medical Officer did not find any foreign body in the nail clippings of P.W.1. 8. As far as cross-examination of P. W I is concerned, it is admitted by her that mother of Gokuldas Dhurve, who was her neighbour, had expired on the same night and villagers were visiting his house frequently. In view of this, the case of the respondent that appellant No. I was inside the house and had committed forcible sexual intercourse with P. W.1 and that appellant No.2 was outside the house holding P.W2 is not believable. P.W2 was not a stranger to P. W.I nor there was any reason for P. W.2 to give a false evidence before the Court. P. W.2 was real younger sister of husband of P.W.1. If she has not supported the prosecution case and has specifically stated that the alleged incident had not occurred, then the prosecution was under obligation to explain as to why a very close relation of P.W.1 and her husband had not supported the prosecution case. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 in her examination-in-chief, which does not appear to be reliable and also considering the evidence of P. W.2, who has not supported the prosecution case, I am of the view that it was highly risky on the part of the learned trial Court to convict appellant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It follows that it was also not possible to convict appellant No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order. Both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.73/2010 dated 20th February, 2013 is set aside. The appellant Shahinsha @ Raju Trimbak Todase in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2013 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Bhawani Haridas Dhurve in Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2013 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Shahinsha @ Raju Trimbak Todase in Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2013 shall be released from Prison immediately, if not required in any other case. The appellant Bhawani Haridas Dhurve in Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2013 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Shahinsha @ Raju Trimbak Todase in Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2013 shall be released from Prison immediately, if not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the appellant Bhawani Haridas Dhurve in Criminal Appeal No.204 of. 2013 shall stand cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. Appeals allowed.