JUDGMENT 1. - In challenge is the judgment and order dated 27.03.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 19/1987 convicting the appellant under sections 376, 377 & 457 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 10, 5 & 4 years R.I. correspondingly and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, in default to suffer R.I. for further 1 year on each of the convictions. 2. Heard Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Choudhary on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The prosecution case is traceable to the FIR dated 16th October, 1986 lodged by one Smt. Basanti to the effect that in the night of 15/16th October, 1986 at about 1.30 AM while she was sleeping in her house, the appellant knocked at her door. She having enquired, the appellant disclosed his identity, entered the room and sought for her daughter Kusum who was sleeping in the next room. In course of the commotion, the informants daughter Kusum also woke up and realising the presence of the appellant in the house along with the house lady Safedi (PW-4) fled therefrom. The FIR mentioned that when for about one hour, Kusum did not return, the appellant threatened the informant to outrage her modesty if she did not take immediate steps to bring her back. It was alleged that he thereafter held the informant/prosecutrix by hand and dragged her towards nearby low lying pit. The informant stated that in the process, she also assaulted the appellant with a lathi and raised alarm, but he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and threatened to kill her with a country made gun. According to the prosecutrix, when she was being dragged, her neighbours Kishan Punjabi and his wife along with Govind Singh & others were present. 4. On the basis of the FIR, the police registered a case against the appellant and laid charge sheet against him under the above provisions of the IPC. He denied the charge when confronted therewith by the learned trial court. In the trial, that followed, the prosecution examined several witnesses including the prosecutrix Basanti (PW-3), the house lady Safedi (PW-4), her daughter Kusum (PW-9) and her son Suresh (PW-14). He denied the charge when confronted therewith by the learned trial court. In the trial, that followed, the prosecution examined several witnesses including the prosecutrix Basanti (PW-3), the house lady Safedi (PW-4), her daughter Kusum (PW-9) and her son Suresh (PW-14). The prosecutrix in her testimony though substantially adhered to the version made in the FIR, she did not noticeably mention that she had while being dragged by the appellant assaulted him with lathi and had raised alarm. She did not disclose the presence of Kishan Panjabi who had arrived at the scene of occurrence on her alarm. She, however, averred about her medical examination, seizure of her wearing apparels and collection of sample of her vaginal swab for the forensic examination. In cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she had previous association with the appellant and that he used to visit her house and that she was a consenting party to the alleged act of coitus. 5. The house lady Safedi (PW-4), Kusum (PW-9) and Suresh (PW- 14) were declared hostile as none of them supported the prosecutrix. This is of utmost significance that Kusum (PW-9) and Suresh (PW-14) are incidentally her children and expected having regard to the relationship and gravity of the offence alleged were supposed to affirm the correctness of the allegations made by their mother. 6. The medical report (Ex. P-11) also did not disclose any injury mark on the private parts of the prosecutrix. The forensic science laboratory report (Ex.P-13), however, disclosed human semen in the wearing apparels of the prosecutrix and her vaginal swab. 7. Mr. Singh has urged that the prosecution story, as narrated in the FIR and reiterated by the prosecutrix, is wholly unbelievable, more particularly, not being supported by PW-4, PW-9 & PW-14 who were said to be present at the time of the incident. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that as it is evident from the materials on record that the prosecutrix was after her husbands death had borne a child indicating her extra marital relationship with other men, her testimony implicating the appellant ought to have been discarded in to to. Mr. Singh has urged that in the attendant facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. 8. Mr. Singh has urged that in the attendant facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, has urged that the evidence of PW-1 is self sufficient sans any support from the testimony in PW-4, PW-9 & PW-14 and conviction of the accused-appellant had been validly recorded in face of the unambiguous finding of the presence of the human semen in the wearing apparels of the prosecutrix and her vaginal swab. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge levelled against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It is intriguing nay impossible by normal human conduct for the children to contradict their mother in a serious incident of the type involved, if true. The house lady Safedi (PW-4) supposedly an independent witness also did not support the prosecution case. As referred to herein above, her version in the FIR also differs from her testimony at the trial so much so that a shadow of doubt cast on the veracity of the prosecution case. On a totality of the consideration of the above irreconcilable factual aspects rendering the prosecution case very doubtful, conviction of the accused-appellant in my opinion only on the basis of the finding in the forensic science laboratory report would be unsafe. 10. In the above view of the matter, I am persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and it is ordered accordingly. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges and is hereby discharged from the bail bail bonds.Appeal allowed. *******