JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr.Ronak Singhvi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr.J.R.Bijamia learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan. 2. The appellant being convicted under section 323,342 & 376 IPC by the judgment and order dated 12.10.1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 12/84 and sentenced to suffer for various durations of rigorous imprisonment and pay fine, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, is in appeal for redress. 3. On 07.10.1983 one Sheoji lodged a written information with the Police Station, Deoli alleging that on 05.10.1983, while his wife Sohini aged 18 years was returning from her field, followed by him (her husband), the appellant intercepted her and forcibly lifted her to his house, assaulted her severely and also committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The report discloses that on hearing the hue and cry, the inhabitants of the locality gathered in front of the house of the appellant and eventually the victim was retrieved in tattered clothes. 4. On this information, the police registered a case and on the completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet against the appellant under sections 323,342 & 376IPC. The appellant denied the charge and was put to trial. The prosecution examined several witness including the prosecutrix, PW1. Motiya, her sister-in-law, Sheoji, the informant, Dr.V.D.Sharma, who medically examined the prosecutrix, Jamna Lai PW6, Ram Karan PW7 and the Investigating Officer. The appellant, in course of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the charge and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in view of the subsisting enmity between the families over the allegation of theft of agricultural yield by the victim. He also examined Heera Lai in defence, who testified that on the date of occurrence, the womenfolk of both the families had a confrontation in course of which Sohini was assaulted. Two other witnesses DW2 Ram Deva and DW3 Dhapu were also examined. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that not only there are material variations in the versions in the first information report and the testimony of the prosecutrix, the manner in which the alleged offence was said to have been committed renders it inherently improbable and thus, the learned trial court ought to have rejected the case of the prosecution. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that not only there are material variations in the versions in the first information report and the testimony of the prosecutrix, the manner in which the alleged offence was said to have been committed renders it inherently improbable and thus, the learned trial court ought to have rejected the case of the prosecution. He has further urged that though as per the evidence of the prosecutrix, Heera Lai was an eye-witness, the prosecution without any reason whatsoever did not examine him and was eventually produced by the defence as his witness, who rendered a total different account of facts which demolished the charge against the appellant. Apart therefrom, the learned Amicus Curiae has further argued that the evidence of other prosecution witnesses did project a totally incoherent factual narration of the alleged incident belying the complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime. Referring to the evidence of the doctor, he has insisted that the same decisively ruled out the allegations imputed against the appellant and instead endorsed his defence plea in full. The learned Amicus Curiae has also relied on the evidence of the defence witnesses to reinforce the contention of the defence that the prosecutrix suffered injuries on being assaulted in course of the animated quarrel of the womenfolk. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor in reply, has averred that the evidence of the prosecutrix read with that of the other witnesses, more particularly, her husband, proved the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. 7. Before adverting for the rival submissions for analysis, it would be appropriate to notice the evidence on record in short. A bare perusal of the written information lodged with the police at the first instance, Exhibit-Pl would disclose that allegedly the appellant had intercepted the prosecutrix while she was on her way and had reached near his house and that after grabbing her from behind, she was forcibly taken inside and assaulted with a lathi. It was alleged that on raising hue and cry, the villagers assembled near the house of the appellant and though they tried to open the door they did not succeed. It was alleged that on raising hue and cry, the villagers assembled near the house of the appellant and though they tried to open the door they did not succeed. It was thereafter that the informant, the husband of the victim climbed on the roof of the house and thereafter breaking the same, entered the room where the victim was kept confined by the appellant. The first information report discloses that at that point of time alongwith the prosecutrixs husband, one Jamna and Ram Karan were also present. The informant mentioned in the FIR that he was told by the prosecutrix that she had been raped by the appellant after she had fallen unconscious because of the beating. 8. The prosecutrix in her depositing at the trial also did state that she, while the appellant was assaulting her, had raised alarm, on which Motiya and others arrived at the doorstep of the appellant. She stated that she lost sense because of the assaults and that when she regained the same after an hour, she found herself to be naked and the appellant committing rape on her. She also stated that as inspite of repeated attempts made by the villagers gathered outside the door was neither opened by the appellant nor could be broken her husband climbed on the roof and thereafter breaking the same entered the room whereafter she was freed. In her cross-examination, she clarified that the house where she was confined and molested, was that of Gopal. 9. PW2 Motiya, however, stated that on hearing the screams of the prosecutrix, she raised alarm and reached the house of the appellant, inside which he had been confined her (victim). She testified that as the door of the house could not be opened, she suggested the husband of the victim to enter the room through roof. In cross-examination, she stated that the house was that of Ambba, who was the elder brother of the appellant. 10. PW4 Sheoji, husband of the victim, deposed that on the date of incident, while both of them were returning home, he lagged behind to puff a bin" with Heera Lai. He deposed that while Sohini went ahead, she was grabbed forcibly by the appellant and was taken inside his house. He stated further that on reaching the house of the appellant he asked the appellant to open the door but did not oblige. He deposed that while Sohini went ahead, she was grabbed forcibly by the appellant and was taken inside his house. He stated further that on reaching the house of the appellant he asked the appellant to open the door but did not oblige. He stated that on hearing hue and cry of his wife, the villagers assembled there and as the door was not opened, he climbed the roof alongwith Jamna and entered the room. He stated that when he broke the roof and saw inside the room, he found the victim to be naked and the appellant committing coitus with her. He stated that as it was evening by the time the appellant was rescued, he did not file the FIR and that on the next date when he was on his way to the police to do so, he was intimidated by the appellant. 11. PW5 Dr. V.D. Sharma, in his deposition on oath, stated about the presence of nine bruise on the arm, shoulder, scapular region, back, lower leg and right thigh of the victim. According to him, the injuries were simple caused by blunt weapon. He stated that vis-a-vis the imputation of rape there was no external injury on her breast, inner side thigh, vulva or vagina. That no internal injury was detected was mentioned as well. According to the witness, victim was a married woman, habituated to sexual intercourse and he opined that though she might have undergone rape, it was not forcible. Jamna Lai, who according to the prosecution had accompanied the husband of the victim on the roof did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Ram Karan, who in terms of the FIR was also present with Sheoji, did not support the allegation levelled against the appellant and was declared to be hostile. To reiterate the defence witnesses proved that on the date of occurrence stemming from the allegation of theft by Sohini of some agricultural yield, the womenfolk of the two families quarreled in course of which the prosecutrix was assaulted, for which she suffered injuries. 12. On a cumulative evaluation of the evidence on record as a whole, the contention that the prosecution case is inherently improbable cannot be lightly brushed aside. 12. On a cumulative evaluation of the evidence on record as a whole, the contention that the prosecution case is inherently improbable cannot be lightly brushed aside. Having regard to the sequence of events narrated in the FIR and in the evidence of the prosecutrix and her husband not only material contradictions surface mutilating each other, thereby the prosecution case is rendered wholly untrustwothy. It is incomprehensible that a married woman, after being lifted from a public road inside the house, was assaulted for an hour and that though on hearing her cries, the villagers had assembled around the house of the appellant, he with impunity, as if with all the time in the world at his disposal, kept on assaulting her and thereafter when she had fallen unconscious, raped her till her husband barged into the room through the roof alongwith two companions to save her. The evidence of the doctor as noticed hereinabove, does not endorse the accusation of forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Two of the prosecution witnesses, who in terms of the FIR were present alongwith the husband of the prosecutrix when she was found in a naked condition with the appellant was committing rape on her, did not support the charge. It is a factor which weighs heavily against the veracity of the prosecution case. On the other hand, the nature of the injuries sustained and the plea of assaults also in the womenfolk are complementarally compatible. 13. Be that as it may, having regard to the evidence on record, as a whole, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment and order is unsustainable in law and on facts and is interfered with the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant is set aside. Having regard to the fact that the incident constituting the alleged offence of wrongful confinement, assault and rape has been presented as a composite whole, in view of the determination made hereinabove, the appellant is entitled to the full acquittal. 14. In the overall premise, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and other is thus, set aside. The appellant is acquitted and exonerated of the charge. He is thus, set at liberty. The bail bonds stand discharged. 14. In the overall premise, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and other is thus, set aside. The appellant is acquitted and exonerated of the charge. He is thus, set at liberty. The bail bonds stand discharged. The office would remit the records. 15. Before parting, I wish to record my appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr.Ronak Singhvi as Amicus Curiae. His professional fee is assessed as Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the State Government. *******