JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.12.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.88/85 thereby convicting the appellant No.1 under Sections 376/114 IPC and appellant No.2 under Section 376 IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months, they are in appeal seeking redress. 2. Noticeably, the appellant No.1 on his conviction under Section 376/114 IPC, had been sentenced also, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo six more months of rigorous imprisonment. 3. I have heard Mr.Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged on 16.7.1984 with Police Station, Asnawar by one Chothmal to the effect that on receiving, about ten days back, a message from his sister, Smt.Kali that her daughter Smt.Prem Bai had been forcibly abducted by one Shubharat S/o Hari Kishan Mogiya, resident of Chhajawa, Police Station, Atru, District Kota, he alongwith his wife Smt.Kailashi went to Village Digoj, wherefrom Smt.Kali accompanied them. They were joined by one Onkar Lal Mogiya and his wife at Village Bager. The informant and other members of the party thereafter, proceeded to Village Munderi and spending their night there in the house of Ram Lal Dhobi, proceeded on foot towards Jhalawar by road. It was alleged that when the informant and his wife and sister reached the culvert near the Kali Singh River, they were intercepted by 10/11 persons, who emerged from behind the trees by the side of the road. The informant alleged that thereafter, the miscreants, armed with lathis, drove them towards the khal by show of force, whereafter Shubharat inflicted farsi blow on his head. He also alleged that Hajari, Kedar and Bharmal, amongst the miscreants, assaulted him with fists and blows and felled him on the ground. The FIR disclosed that at this juncture, his wife Smt.Kailashi was dragged away by Shubharat and Khajan to some distance in the khal, and after felling her on the ground, they committed forcible sexual intercourse with her by turn. The informant further alleged that at that time, his wife was gagged by inserting a towel in her mouth. The FIR disclosed that at this juncture, his wife Smt.Kailashi was dragged away by Shubharat and Khajan to some distance in the khal, and after felling her on the ground, they committed forcible sexual intercourse with her by turn. The informant further alleged that at that time, his wife was gagged by inserting a towel in her mouth. The FIR disclosed further that at the same time, one of the miscreants, Ram Lal, inflicted farsi blow on the head of his sister Smt.Kali and co-accused Jaganya, Kishore Ram, Pal and Gopal took her behind the trees, and after felling her on the ground, Gopal committed rape on her, while Jaganya, Kishore and Ram Lal caught hold of her arms and feet. After commission of such brutal acts, the miscreants ran away. 5. On the completion of the investigation in the case, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and eight others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 376 IPC and the learned trial court eventually, framed charges under Sections 148, 149, 323/149, 324, 376 and 376/114 IPC against appellant No.1 and under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 376 IPC against appellant No.2. Charges under various sections of the IPC were also framed against Kedar, Hajari, Sugreem, Bharmal, Jagnya, Kishore and Rampal. The accused persons pleaded innocence and denied the charges. At the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses, including the informant, the victims, the doctor and the investigating officer. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under 313 Cr.P.C., and eventually, by the judgment and order impugned herein, the appellants were convicted as above, whereas the co-accused were acquitted. 6. Mr. Mehrishi has emphatically urged that not only the prosecution story is highly improbable, thus rendering it untrustworthy, in the face of the irreconcilable contradictions in the evidence of the informant and the victims, the appellants ought to have been acquitted of the charge. Not only the acquittal of the co-accused did demonstrate the falsity of the prosecution case, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of PW-4, PW-6 & PW-7, read as a whole, wholly belied the charge. According to Mr. Mehrishi, evidence of the doctor and the injury reports did not support the allegation of forcible rape on PW-6 & PW-7 rendering their evidence wholly incredible. According to Mr. Mehrishi, evidence of the doctor and the injury reports did not support the allegation of forcible rape on PW-6 & PW-7 rendering their evidence wholly incredible. Further, Onkar Lal Mogiya and his wife, Samri Bai who accompanied the informant and the victims, not having supported their version vis-a-vis the alleged incident, the learned court below erred in law and on facts in convicting the appellants, he urged. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Narayan Alias Naran v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (4) Criminal Court Cases 242 (SC) : (2007) 6 SCC 465 and Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 (4) Criminal Court Cases 338 (SC) : (2007) 12 SCC 57 . 7. Mr. Choudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, to the contrary, has urged that the evidence of the prosecution evidence as a whole did prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant portions of the decision impugned, he insisted that from the disclosures at the place of occurrence, in course of the investigation and the forensic science reports, did amply corroborate the evidence of the informant and the victims as a whole, and thus, the appellants had been rightly convicted and sentenced. 8. In order to appropriately appreciate the rival submissions, it would be essential to deal with the relevant portions of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses mainly, the informant, the victims and the doctor who had medically examined them. The informant PW-1, while generally narrating the facts, as set out in the FIR, did reiterate that his wife Smt. Kailashi had disclosed to him that she had been raped by the appellant No.1 and Shubharat. He deposed further that his sister, Smt. Kali told him that Ram Pal and Gopal had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the accused Shubharat was related with the other accused persons. PW-6 Kailashi, wife of the informant Chothmal however, reiterated that Shubharat and appellant No.1-Khajan had raped her. In cross-examination, she stated that while she resisted the offending act, she did hurt herself in her hands, and that, she had drawn the attention of such injury to the doctor who medically examined her. PW-6 Kailashi, wife of the informant Chothmal however, reiterated that Shubharat and appellant No.1-Khajan had raped her. In cross-examination, she stated that while she resisted the offending act, she did hurt herself in her hands, and that, she had drawn the attention of such injury to the doctor who medically examined her. PW-7 Kali Bai, the other victim, in her cross-examination however, admitted that appellant No.1-Khajan was not present at the place of occurrence. PW-11 Dr. R.K.Vyas, who examined the informant and the victims on the very same date of the incident, inter alia disclosed that there was neither any injury on the private parts of PW-6 & PW-7 nor there was any discharge therefrom. According to him, these two ladies being married, their hymen wore old tears. The corresponding medical reports Ex.P-36 & 37 proved by this witness was to the effect that it was very difficult to conclude that rape had been committed on the victims. That no external injury was detected over the elbow, face, chest, inner side of thigh, abdomen, buttocks and back side of vertebral region, was also indicated. Though the learned Public Prosecutor, as referred to hereinabove, sought to rely on the forensic report Ex.P-14, the same albeit indicated presence of semen in the wearing apparels, it suggested absence thereof in their vagina swab. Having regard to the fact that the victims were admittedly married on the date of the incident, this finding recorded in the forensic report cannot be construed to be decisive to establish the commission of rape on them by the appellants. 9. Not only the evidence of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6, having regard to the prosecution case, as a whole, does not inspire confidence, in view of inherent inconsistencies mutilating the testimony of each other, acquittal of the other accused persons renders it (prosecution case) even otherwise unacceptable. Considering the manner in which the alleged offence of rape had been committed on PW-6 & PW-7 with the accompanying force applied by more than one grown up male persons, absence of any external injury on the bodies of the victims, also is a factor weighing strongly against the veracity of the prosecution case. Considering the manner in which the alleged offence of rape had been committed on PW-6 & PW-7 with the accompanying force applied by more than one grown up male persons, absence of any external injury on the bodies of the victims, also is a factor weighing strongly against the veracity of the prosecution case. The factum of subsisting animosity with Shubharat, he having been accused of abducting the daughter of informant's sister the likelihood of false implication cannot be ruled out, more particularly, in the face of his acquittal from the charges. This assumes importance in view of otherwise categorical allegation of PW-1 & PW-6 that he, alongwith appellant No.1-Khajan, had committed rape on Kailashi (PW-6) by turn. 10. Though in a case of rape, under the IPC, normally, the evidence of the prosecutrix is accepted and even conviction can be founded thereon, if such testimony in view of the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies is unreliable, it can be discarded, as has been propounded in Narayan alias Naran(supra). That failure by defence to prove motive for false implication, is inconsequential, if the prosecution is unable to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Radhu (supra). 11. On an analysis of the materials on record, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the findings recorded by the learned trial court against the appellants in support of the charge, cannot be sustained. Their, conviction, as recorded in the impugned judgment and order, therefore, is interfered with. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and they are hereby discharged from their bail bonds.The appeal is allowed. *******