JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. P.R. Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.05.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 190/89 convicting the appellant under section 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 1 month. 3. The prosecution case is traceable to a written report laid with the Khanpur Police Station on 27.09.1989 by the prosecutrix Pushpa Bai alleging that on 25.09.1989, while she was working in the field of the appellant as a substitute of her husband, who was employed under him, he (appellant) committed forcible sexual intercourse with her thereat, whereupon she became unconscious. She was thereafter brought home by Badri Lal, who at the relevant time was working in a nearby field and had reached the place of occurrence on hearing her cries. The police registered a case and on completion of the investigation, submitted challan against the appellant under section 376 IPC. He denied the charge and thus, was made to stand trial, in course whereof the prosecution examined the prosecutrix, Badri Lal and Dr.V.K.Sharma, who had medically examined her. The appellant, in course of his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., stood by his denial of the charge. He was eventually convicted and sentenced as above. 4. The prosecutrix, in her testimony, admitted that her husband was an employee of the appellant. She substantially reiterated her allegations in the written information. She admitted further that when she screamed, the appellant placed a sharp cutting weapon on her neck. She, however, stated that at this she lost her senses. According to her, after the act was over, her wearing clothes got stained with her discharge. Thereafter, the appellant called her husband pretending that she had become unconscious being over powered by some spirit. She stated further that after she returned home and was crying over the incident, she did not disclose about the same to anyone and that it was later in the night when her husband came, that she narrated the same to him. She stated that she had handed over her clothes, which she had been wearing at the time of the occurrence, to the police. She stated that she had handed over her clothes, which she had been wearing at the time of the occurrence, to the police. She stated further that her husband was indebted to the appellant to Rs. 6500/- and that the latter had threatened that if the amount was not paid, he would take possession of their dwelling house. 5. PW-5 Badri Lal stated that on the date of occurrence, he was working in his field and rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix. As he reached the site, he found the appellant and the prosecutrix in a compromising position and that he (appellant) was engaged in the act of coitus. According to the witness, he on seeing the scene withdrew himself and when he returned after being sent by sister-in-law of the appellant, he found the prosecutrix lying unconscious on the ground. He then lifted the prosecutrix and brought her home. He stated that the prosecutrix then disclosed to her that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. He, however, expressed ignorance as to whether it was consensual or otherwise. 6. PW-1 Dr. V.K. Sharma stated to have medically examined the prosecutrix on the date of the information i.e. 27.09.1989 and disclosed that in course thereof, no injury was found on her body. The witness deposed that the prosecutrix, however, had told that one person on 25.09.1989 at about 3.00 p.m. had raped her. He stated that her hymen was ruptured from before and that it was difficult to opine as to whether within past 24 hours she had been subjected to sexual intercourse. The witness assessed her age to be approximately 17 years. He also proved the medical report, Exhibit-P1, which not only supported the above testimony but also disclosed an entry that the prosecutrix was a married woman and that her vaginal swab had been collected for chemical analysis and that she was habituated to regular sexual intercourse. 7. The forensic science laboratory report, Exhibit-P9, however, disclosed presence of semen in her 'Ghagra' and 'Chaddi' seized by the police.9. Mr. Rajawat has argued that as the evidence of the prosecutrix is not supported by the findings on her medical examination, the learned trial court ought to have acquitted the appellant. 7. The forensic science laboratory report, Exhibit-P9, however, disclosed presence of semen in her 'Ghagra' and 'Chaddi' seized by the police.9. Mr. Rajawat has argued that as the evidence of the prosecutrix is not supported by the findings on her medical examination, the learned trial court ought to have acquitted the appellant. As no injury whatsoever has been found her body, her version with regard to the incident is wholly untrustworthy and therefore, is liable to be rejected. Contending that the prosecutrix at the relevant point of time was a major and a married woman, the learned counsel has insisted that the appellant had been falsely implicated in order to harass and intimidate him as he was insisting for payment of the outstanding dues from the husband of the prosecutrix. The learned counsel has further argued that the testimony of PW-5 is wholly unbelievable. 10. In reply, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that it is apparent from the medical evidence that at the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix was a minor and in the face of her unflinching evidence corroborated by the testimony of PW-5, the conviction of the appellant is fully justified. As PW-5 had reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, it can by no means be said that she was a consenting party to the offending act and having regard to the gravity of the offence, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted. 11. I have considered the materials on record and have analyzed the arguments advanced. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged incident was married and was otherwise habituated to sexual intercourse, the failure of the doctor to detect any injury on her body within two days therefrom casts a doubt on the veracity of her accusations. The sequence of events as narrated by the prosecutrix and the manner of commission of the offence as alleged in normal circumstances ought to have left injuries on her body. 12. Noticeably, in course of her medical examination, though she mentioned that she had been raped, she did not named the appellant. Her age though, had been opined to be 17 years, in law there is an acceptable margin of two years either way. 12. Noticeably, in course of her medical examination, though she mentioned that she had been raped, she did not named the appellant. Her age though, had been opined to be 17 years, in law there is an acceptable margin of two years either way. The conduct of PW-5, if at all, he had reached the place of occurrence as claimed by him, is inexplicable unless he had found the couple engaged in a consensual sexual act. This witness thus, cannot be considered to be reliable. His statement that he withdrew from the place of occurrence and he returned after being sent by sister-in-law of the appellant is even more intriguing.13. On an overall consideration of the relevant facts, it is considered to be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant based on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone. He is thus, entitled to the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment and order is thus, unsustainable in law and on facts. 14. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order 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.Appeal allowed. *******