ORDER This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5-7-1996 passed by Additional Special Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Special Case No. 81/1994 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 376(2)(g), IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year u/S. 342 and RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/- u/S. 376(2)(g), IPC, plus default stipulations. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 22-4-1994 FIR Ex. P-6 was lodged by the prosecutrix a married lady aged about 18 years alleging that on 21-4-1994 at about 4 p.m. when she was returning from the house of her father, on the way accused/appellant herein and co-accused Rajendra apprehended her and made certain inquiry from her. Accused/appellant caught hold of her hand whereas co-accused gagged her mouth with shawl. It is alleged that the accused persons took her to a nearby tree with an intention to outrage her modesty but as at that time two persons namely Baua Ahir and Karnia Ahir came there, accused persons ran away. Based on this FIR, offence under Section 354/34, IPC was registered against the accused persons. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161, Cr. P.C. was recorded on 23-4-1994 in which she made an allegation that she was subjected to gang rape by the accused persons. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically examined on 26-4-1994 by Dr. (Smt.) M.P. Jaiswal (P.W. 4) who gave her report Ex. P-3 and then after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons under Sections 376 and 342/34, IPC. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Trial of the co-accused being minor was however made over the Juvenile Court. 4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of the judgment. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that prosecutrix (P.W. 5A) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has categorically stated that she was not subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that prosecutrix (P.W. 5A) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has categorically stated that she was not subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. According to the counsel for the accused/appellant, medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the case of the prosecution and therefore the accused/appellant cannot be convicted under Section 376(2)(g), IPC. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that findings of the Court below are strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 8. Prosecutrix (P.W. 5A) has stated that on the date of incident when she was returning from the house of her father, at about 4 in the evening, accused/appellant and the co-accused who were hiding themselves in the bushes came out, dragged her away in the bushes and when she tried to raise an alarm, they had gagged her mouth. Thereafter, according to this witness, the accused persons threw her on the ground, upturned the clothes worn by her, accused/appellant held her and the co-accused Rajendra committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and after he completed his act, the accused/appellant also did the same and then they both left the place of incident. This witness has stated that while being subjected to rape, her bangles were broken. After reaching home, she narrated the entire incident to her grand-mother as also her husband and then the report was lodged. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that though she was taken to nearby bushes by the accused persons, the accused/appellant did not do anything and he was just grazing his cattle at some distance. She has further clarified that she narrated the incident to her grand-mother in respect of co-accused Rajendra only and that the accused/appellant had reached there after some time. According to this witness, in the village Panchayat, the incident of teasing was disclosed by her and nothing about rape was disclosed due to shame. She has further clarified that the accused/appellant never subjected her to rape and it is co-accused Rajendra who committed rape of her. This witness has further stated that her mother-in-law and father-in-law had asked her to falsely implicate the accused/appellant. She has further clarified that the accused/appellant never subjected her to rape and it is co-accused Rajendra who committed rape of her. This witness has further stated that her mother-in-law and father-in-law had asked her to falsely implicate the accused/appellant. Boloram (P.W. 1) has stated that he was informed by the prosecutrix that she was dragged by the accused/appellant and the co-accused namely Rajendra. Prosecutrix had also informed him that she was subjected to bad work by the accused/appellant. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Jain (P.W. 2) is the witness who radio logically examined the prosecutrix and gave his report Ex. P-1 stating that she at the relevant time was aged about 14 years. Dr. K. P. Vishwakarma (P.W. 3) is the witness who medically examined the accused/appellant and gave his report Ex. P-2 stating that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Dr. (Smt.) S. P. Jaiswal (P.W. 4) is the witness who medically examined the prosecutrix and gave her report Ex. P-3 stating that she was fully developed woman, her hymen was old torn, there was no sign of recent intercourse and on touch she was not complaining pain on her private part. Arvind Tiwari (P.W. 5) is the witness who did part of the investigation. Sitaram Gupta (P.W. 6) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P-8. Mohanram (P.W. 8) is the witness to seizure of sealed packet made under Ex. P-3. Rama Shankar Singh (P.W. 8) and Sajjanram (P.W. 9) are the witnesses who assisted in the investigation. 9. Having thus heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecutrix has not been consistent while deposing the things in the Court and as such she cannot be said to be a reliable witness. While lodging the FIR the prosecutrix has made allegation only in respect of the offence under Section 354, IPC. In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that she was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant also but again in the cross-examination she has categorically stated that accused/appellant had not raped her and he was simply grazing his cattle at some distance. She has further stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had asked her to implicate the accused/appellant in a false case. She has further stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had asked her to implicate the accused/appellant in a false case. Even the medical report of the prosecutrix does not indicate anything regarding her being subjected to rape. True it is that in sex-related offences, the statement of the prosecutrix is good enough to convict the accused and no further corroboration of the same is required. However, in a case where the prosecutrix remains throughout inconsistent in deposing the things before the Court, her testimony is required to be looked into in the light of other evidence collected by the prosecution and without following that exercise, conviction of the accused in such cases would be bad in law. Conduct of the prosecutrix in blowing hot and cold at the same time makes it difficult for this Court to rely on the statement made by her either before the police or in the Court and that being so the accused/appellant must get the benefit of doubt. 10. In view of the aforesaid factual discussion, this Court finds the judgment of the Court below to be based on no evidence. There is a grave illegality and infirmity in the findings recorded by the Court below while rendering the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as described above. Judgment impugned is thus liable to lose its existence. Appeal thus succeeds, judgment impugned set aside and the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Accused/appellant is already on bail and therefore his bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed.