JUDGMENT Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.10.2001 and sentence order dated 18.10.2001 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2001/514 of 2001 by which and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. In brief, the prosecution case, is that PW 2 namely, Bhagmati Devi gave a written report to officer in charge of Bheldi Police Station on 01.11.2000 to this effect that on the same day at 03:00 a.m., her daughter, namely. Laria Kumari aged about 16 years was found missing from the house and she made hectic search but could not succeed to trace her out. She expressed her belief that her daughter Laria Kumari was kidnapped by Ranjit Mahto and Shankar Mahto for the purpose of marriage. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Amnour (Bheldi) P.S. Case No. 131 of 2000 under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly, formal first information report for the above stated offence was prepared against the first information report named accused, Ranjit Mahto and Shankar Mahto. 5. Prosecution Witness No.7 namely, Sri Mohan Singh took charge of investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested first information report named accused, Ranjit Mahto and Shankar Mahto and also recovered the victim, Laria Kumari. The victim was sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, PW 7 submitted charge-sheet against appellant and others. 6. On being receipt of the chargesheet, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in usual way. The appellant and other charge-sheeted accused Ranjit Mahto and Shankar Mahto were put on trial and accordingly, appellant was separately charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellant and two other accused were jointly charged for the offences punishable under Sections 363/34, 366A/34 and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and other charge-sheeted accused Ranjit Mahto and Shankar Mahto were put on trial and accordingly, appellant was separately charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellant and two other accused were jointly charged for the offences punishable under Sections 363/34, 366A/34 and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to appellant and other accused but they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 7. In course of trial, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses and also got exhibited statement of PW 3 Laria Kumari recorded under Section 164 of the Cr PC as Exhibit-1 injury report of PW 3 as Exhibit-2, initial signatures of PW 6 as Exhibit-2 series initial signature of Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad as Exhibit-3 endorsement on the written report of PW 2 as Exhibit-4 requisition of police sent to doctor for medical examination of PW 3 as Exhibit-5 and formal first information report as Exhibit-6. The statements of appellant and other accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which they denied the prosecution story and claimed their false implication. 8. The learned trial Court having considered the materials available on the record convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above but acquitted other accused namely Ranjit Mahto and Shankar Mahto passing impugned judgment. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the statement of PW 3 the victim is full of contradictions and she developed her statement in course of trial. He further submitted that as a matter of fact co-accused. Ranjit Mahto is own brother-in-law of victim. PW 3 and to save the skin of aforesaid co-accused Ranjit Mahto the victim as well as her other family members developed their story and implicated the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant took me through the evidences available on the record and pointed out that the victim was caught by the police along with co-accused Ranjit Mahto, Shankar Mahto as well as her brother on the alleged date of occurrence and she was brought to police station where she was kept for near about 2 to 3 days and after that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr PC. He further submitted that medical report of victim does not support the allegation of rape and. Therefore, the prosecution could not succeed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. He further submitted that no doubt the statement of victim of rape is sufficient to convict an accused of rape but if the aforesaid statement does not inspire confidence to the Court the accused of rape cannot be convicted only on the basis of sole testimony of victim of rape and in the instant case the statement of PW 3 does not inspire confidence and. therefore it is unsafe to maintain the conviction of appellant on the basis of evidence of PW 3 and other prosecution witnesses. 10. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that the victim and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case and they proved the alleged occurrence and. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 11. PW 5, Bharat Tiwari is a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class who stated in his deposition that on 04.11.2000. he recorded the statement of victim. PW 3 under Section 164 of the Cr PC. He proved the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr PC as Exhibit-1. He admitted in his cross-examination that it has not been mentioned in the statement of PW 3 recorded under Section 164 of the Cr PC that her statement was read over to her and having understood the statement. she put her thumb impression. Furthermore, he has admitted in his cross-examination that though PW 3 put her thumb impression on her statement but inadvertently. it has been left to write that the aforesaid thumb impression belonged to PW 3. 12. Exhibit-1 reveals that PW 3 had stated before PW 5 that while she was sleeping in her house appellant came there and woke up her and furthermore proposed her to elope with him for the purpose of marriage and on account of the aforesaid inducement. she went to canal and while she was sitting near the canal his brother Lal Bachan Mahton (PW 4) came there and took her to her house whereas appellant fled away from there leaving behind her. she went to canal and while she was sitting near the canal his brother Lal Bachan Mahton (PW 4) came there and took her to her house whereas appellant fled away from there leaving behind her. Exhibit-1 further reveals that PW 3 further stated that while she was being carried from her house the appellant took her to his house where he committed rape on her. Admittedly, the aforesaid statement of PW 3 was recorded after three days of the alleged occurrence and furthermore victim stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr PC that on the same day of her kidnapping. she was apprehended by her brother. PW 4 who brought her to her home. In course of trial PW 3 deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence while she was at her home the appellant came there and took her from her house. She further stated that she remained with appellant for three to four days in a forest situated near the canal. She further stated that appellant committed rape on her for two days. She admitted that she had given her statement before a Magistrate. She again stated that his brother brought her to her home. On being cross-examined. she further stated that when she was at canal the accused Shankar and Ranjit were also present there but she did not disclose to them about the rape committed by the appellant. She further admitted at para 6 of her cross-examination that while she was being taken to her home by her brother the appellant came there. She further stated at para 7 of her cross-examination that she was at Isopur canal since two hours prior to coming of her brother and before reaching to canal she was at her home and when her brother came at canal. she returned to her home along with her brother. She further stated that she remained at canal for near about two hours. At para 9 of her cross-examination, she stated that when his brother arrived at canal, she was alone there and police also came at canal and when police arrived at canal her brother. she returned to her home along with her brother. She further stated that she remained at canal for near about two hours. At para 9 of her cross-examination, she stated that when his brother arrived at canal, she was alone there and police also came at canal and when police arrived at canal her brother. Lal Bachan Mahton (PW 4), accused Ranjit and Shankar were present there and after that police caught her as well as the aforesaid persons and she as well as her brother were brought to police station where she remained for three days but again she stated that she returned to her home on the same day. She further admitted at para 11 of her cross-examination that she had gone to Court to get her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr PC along with her parents. On the point of rape, she stated that when appellant was committing rape on her she had raised alarm. The appellant committed rape on her twice. She further stated that before committing the rape, the appellant removed her all clothes and furthermore, she admitted at para 14 of her cross-examination that at the time of rape. She raised alarm which attracted to 20 to 25 persons including her mother and brother who came there within a minute. She further stated that when the aforesaid persons arrived. She was in her clothes. She further admitted that accused. Ranjit is her own brother-in-law. At paras 17 and 18 of her cross-examination, the attention of this witness was drawn towards her previous statement recorded by PW 7 under Section 161 of the Cr PC. The attention of this witness was. specifically drawn towards this fact that she had not made statement before the police that appellant committed rape on her for two days and this witness admitted this fact that she had not made such statement that the appellant had committed rape on her for two days. 13. On critical examination of evidence of PW 3. it would appear that the victim, PW 3. her brother. PW 4 and co-accused Ranjit and Shankar were caught by the police near a canal on the day of alleged kidnapping and after that victim as well as her brother. 13. On critical examination of evidence of PW 3. it would appear that the victim, PW 3. her brother. PW 4 and co-accused Ranjit and Shankar were caught by the police near a canal on the day of alleged kidnapping and after that victim as well as her brother. PW 4 were brought to police station where victim remain stayed for three days and after that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr PC and furthermore one thing is also emerged out from the evidence of PW 3 that she had gone to Court to get her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr PC along with her parents. 14. PW 1 is father of PW 3, victim girl. This witness stated that his daughter absconded from the house in the night of alleged date of occurrence and he tried to ascertain this fact as to who had kidnapped his daughter but he could not succeed and when his daughter returned, she disclosed that appellant had committed rape on her. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and denied this fact that he had made statement before the police that his daughter was kidnapped by accused, Shankar Mahto and Ranjit Mahto. He further admitted that his daughter was in love with appellant and this fact came to his knowledge on the alleged date of occurrence. At para 3 of his cross-examination, this witness stated-that PW 3 came to her home after four days of the alleged occurrence and before her arrival to her home, she was recovered by the police. He further admitted that after the alleged occurrence, he met PW 3 at police station on the next day of the alleged occurrence and he came to know this fact at about 08:00 p.m. on the alleged date of occurrence that his daughter had already been recovered by the police and accused, Shankar and Ranjit were also apprehended by the police with his daughter, PW 3. He denied this fact that accused, Ranjit Mahto is his son-in-law. He also admitted this fact that when he met PW 3 at police station, he talked with PW 3. He further admitted that his family members, too, met PW 3. He denied this fact that accused, Ranjit Mahto is his son-in-law. He also admitted this fact that when he met PW 3 at police station, he talked with PW 3. He further admitted that his family members, too, met PW 3. At para 9 of his cross-examination, he stated that he had made statement before the police to this effect that his daughter had told him that appellant had committed rape on her. 15. PW 2 is informant as well as mother of PW 3. She stated that her daughter, PW 3 was caught along with appellant and her daughter disclosed to her to this extent that she was kidnapped by the appellant. She further stated that she had given information regarding the kidnapping of her daughter to police. This witness too declared hostile by the prosecution. She admitted that accused. Ranjit Mahto is her son-in-law whereas accused. Shankar Mahto is her nephew. At para 5 of her cross-examination. she stated that while PW 3 was eloping along with appellant, she had raised alarm and after one day of the aforesaid occurrence she gave information to police about the alleged occurrence. She also admitted at para 6 of her cross-examination that PW 3 returned to her home after four to five days of the alleged occurrence. 16. PW 4 is brother of PW 3. This witness stated that appellant kidnapped his sister and on the next day of above stated kidnapping, his sister was caught with appellant but appellant managed to escape from there. This witness further stated that appellant had committed rape on her sister. This witness denied about the participation of accused, Ranjit Mahto and Shankar Mahto in the alleged crime. At para 5 of his cross-examination this witness stated that he had seen the appellant and PW 3 going from the house and at that time, the appellant was carrying PW 3 in his lap. He further stated that his parents had not seen the aforesaid occurrence. He further stated that having seen the aforesaid occurrence he did not raise any alarm and similarly, his sister also did not raise any alarm. This witness further stated that after three days of the alleged occurrence, his sister was apprehended at canal by the police and the appellant was also apprehended along with his sister by the police. He further stated that having seen the aforesaid occurrence he did not raise any alarm and similarly, his sister also did not raise any alarm. This witness further stated that after three days of the alleged occurrence, his sister was apprehended at canal by the police and the appellant was also apprehended along with his sister by the police. At para 7 of his cross-examination, when attention of this witness was drawn towards his previous statement recorded by PW 7,under Section 161 of the Cr PC, he denied to have made statement before the police to this effect that his sister was kidnapped by the appellant and the appellant was caught along with PW 3. 17. On careful scrutiny of evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements on each and every point. PW 1 stated that PW 3 returned to her home after four days of the alleged occurrence whereas she was caught by the police on the same day of the alleged occurrence and he met PW 3 in police station on the next day of the alleged occurrence whereas PW 4 stated that PW 3 was recovered after three days of the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, PW 2 stated that PW 3 was caught along with appellant whereas PW 3, herself, stated that she was caught by the police along with accused, Ranjit, Shankar and her brother, PW 4, PW 2 stated that while PW 3 was being taken by the appellant. she raised alarm but PW 4 stated that while PW 3 was being taken by the appellant his parents had not seen the aforesaid occurrence. Furthermore, PW 3 stated that he remain stayed at canal for two hours and after that her brother came there and brought her to her house and furthermore, PW 3 stated that before arriving at canal, she was at her home. PW 3 further stated that when her brother, PW 4 arrived at canal, she was alone there and furthermore, she stated that she was raped by the appellant for two days. The aforesaid statement of PW 3 is self contradictory because according to her own statement. PW 3 further stated that when her brother, PW 4 arrived at canal, she was alone there and furthermore, she stated that she was raped by the appellant for two days. The aforesaid statement of PW 3 is self contradictory because according to her own statement. she remained at canal for two hours and before arriving at canal she was at her home and furthermore, when her brother came at canal, she was taken to her home whereas in her another statement, she stated that appellant committed rape on her for two days. Furthermore, PW 3 stated that before committing rape, the appellant removed her all clothes and at the time of rape, she raised alarm which attracted several persons including her mother and brother and the aforesaid persons arrived there within a minute but at that time she was in her clothes. Therefore, it appears that the statement of PW 3 is full of contradictions. 18. PW 7, Mohan Singh stated that in course of investigation, he went to place of occurrence and arrested accused, Ranjit Mahto, Shankar Mahto and PW 3 near Isopur canal. He further stated that within three hours of institution of first information report, PW 3 was recovered and after that she was kept in the supervision of Mahila constable for three days and after recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr PC. she was handed over to her parents and she went along with her parents. This witness further stated that there was no forest near the place from where PW 3 was recovered but PW 3 stated that she remain stayed with the appellant for three to four days in a forest situated near Isopur canal. The evidence of PW 7 corroborates this fact that PW 3 was apprehended along with accused, Ranjit Mahto and Shankar Mahto and at that time appellant was not present there. Furthermore, PW 7 stated that there was only one place of occurrence of the alleged occurrence and he inspected the aforesaid place of occurrence. This witness has nowhere, stated that victim. PW 3 disclosed before him about the story of rape nor the house of the appellant was shown to him by the PW3 and furthermore. Furthermore, PW 7 stated that there was only one place of occurrence of the alleged occurrence and he inspected the aforesaid place of occurrence. This witness has nowhere, stated that victim. PW 3 disclosed before him about the story of rape nor the house of the appellant was shown to him by the PW3 and furthermore. PW 2 the mother of PW 3 stated that PW 3 had only disclosed the fact of her elopement before her and she never disclosed the story of alleged rape. 19. PW 6 is doctor who had examined PW 3. According to PW 6, PW 3 was examined by her on 04.11.2000 i.e. after four days of the alleged occurrence and no sign of rape was found on the person of PW 3. 20. On consideration of entire evidences available on the record. I find that prosecution could not succeed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the learned trial Court has erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussions this criminal appeal is allowed and impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.10.2001 as well as sentence order dated 18.10.2001 are hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.