JUDGMENT 1. - Thewe judgment and order dated 20.12.1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.100/1985, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him for five year's rigorous imprisonment and also requiring him to pay fine of Rs. .500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three months, constitutes the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Deepak Soni, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan. 3. A written report was lodged on 14.5.1985 by Thakurdas, father of the prosecutrix, Guddi with the Officer Incharge, Rajakheda Police Station alleging that while his daughter (Guddi), in the afternoon of that day, had taken her cattle to the nearby river for drinking water and was returning thereafter, the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse on her, by felling her on the bank of the river. The report disclosed that on being told about the incident, the informant, without delay, did lodge the FIR. 4. On this information, the police registered a case, and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 376 IPC. He denied the charge, and was therefore, made to stand trial. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her parents, the doctor who had examined her and also the investigating officer. Though the appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence, in course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he, in categorical terms, stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case, as he came to witness an act of illicit coitus between the prosecutrix and one Ramkhiladi, and that, the written report was in retaliation, in order to prevent him from making any disclosure of the said incident. 5. The learned trial court however, on a consideration of the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as above. 6. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to notice the evidence adduced. 7. The prosecutrix, Guddi, PW-1 deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 12 noon, while she was returning with her cattle from the river, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her, by force. She disclosed further that at that point of time, she was in her periods. 7. The prosecutrix, Guddi, PW-1 deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 12 noon, while she was returning with her cattle from the river, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her, by force. She disclosed further that at that point of time, she was in her periods. According to this witness, when after the act, the appellant fled from the place of occurrence, she returned home and informed about the incident to her mother. She also stated that when her father returned home and was told about the incident, she, with her father, went to the police station and lodged the written report. She also stated about the seizure, amongst others, of her wearing apparels, and also broken pieces of bangles, that she was wearing at the time of the offending act. She also admitted to have been medically examined. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the river was about 1 k.m. away from her house, and that, in between, there were 8 to 10 agricultural fields. She admitted as well that others from the village do also take their cattle to the river for drinking purposes. When confronted with her statement made before the police in course of the investigation, she denied to have stated that before the incident she had met the appellant, who was then herding his goats, and that, she was married to one Vijendra about 5/6 years before. She instead, insisted that she had been married about an year before the incident, and that, her husband was dead six months thereafter. She also denied any statement made by her to the police that she had lived with her husband for about a year. The witness mentioned about injuries on her breasts as well. In cross-examination, she stated that the offending act continued for long, and that, she suffered injuries on her left thigh and also on her vagina. She stated that she sustained injury on her left hand from the broken bangles. She however, denied to have met anyone on her way back. In response to the queries made by the Court, she stated that her petticot was stained by the appellant's semen. She stated that she sustained injury on her left hand from the broken bangles. She however, denied to have met anyone on her way back. In response to the queries made by the Court, she stated that her petticot was stained by the appellant's semen. She denied the suggestion that after the demise of her husband, she had extra-marital relationship with Ramkhiladi, and that, both of them, having been seen by the appellant engaged in an act of coitus, at her instance, Ramkhiladi had conjured the incident to harass and intimate him (appellant). 8. PW-2, Thakurdas, the father of the prosecutrix confirmed that she had been married and had become a widow. According to this witness, on being reported by his wife about the incident, he accompanied her daughter to the police station to lay the report. In cross-examination, this witness affirmed as well that many persons from the village take their cattle to the river for drinking water. He however, denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix had any illicit relationship with Ramkhiladi. 9. PW-3, Buddho the mother of the prosecutrix stated that at the time of the incident, the age of the prosecutrix was 13-14 years, and that, the incident had occurred between 12 noon and 1:00 p.m. She stated that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix returned home crying, and when asked, she disclosed that the appellant had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. In cross-examination, amongst others, this witness disclosed that she had seen bleeding injuries on the hand and thigh of her daughter, and that, her wearing apparels were also stained with blood. 10. PW-5, Dr.N.S.Sarin, who had medically examined the prosecutrix on 14.5.1985 i.e.the very date of the incident, stated to have found bruises on the back side of the right hand and lower portion of her back. The doctor opined that these injuries had been caused by use of blunt weapon. In cross-examination, he stated that these injuries could be self suffered, but not self inflicted. 11. Whereas PW-6, Dhaniram adduced by the prosecution as a seizure witness, resiled and was declared hostile, PW-9, Banwari Lal, the Investigating Officer, amongst others, stated about the seizure of the victim's petticot, and also broken pieces of the bangles from the place of the occurrence. He however, mentioned that he did not seal the pieces of the bangles. 12. 11. Whereas PW-6, Dhaniram adduced by the prosecution as a seizure witness, resiled and was declared hostile, PW-9, Banwari Lal, the Investigating Officer, amongst others, stated about the seizure of the victim's petticot, and also broken pieces of the bangles from the place of the occurrence. He however, mentioned that he did not seal the pieces of the bangles. 12. Mr.Soni has urged that not only, the case of the prosecution is inherently improbable, the version of the prosecutrix demonstrates that she is untruthful on oath, and thus, the learned trial court ought to have acquitted the appellant of the charge of rape. According to Mr. Soni, the incident, as projected by the prosecutrix, is unworthy of credit, inasmuch as, it is unbelievable that the act alleged could have been committed in the broad day light on the banks of a river open to public view. This is more so, as according to the prosecutrix, the appellant had committed the offending act for a quite long time, and that, inspite of her resistance and cries of alarm, nobody had intervened. Referring to the contradictions in her statement before the police and those at the trial, the learned counsel has branded the prosecutrix to be untrustworthy. He has submitted further that as the prosecutrix, at the relevant point of time, was a widow, as per the Hindu custom, it was impermissible to wear bangles, and that too, of green colour, as claimed. Mr.Soni has therefore, urged that her testimony of bangles being broken and the seizure thereof by the police, is wholly unbelievable. The learned counsel has argued that the findings, in course of her medical examination, run counter to her oral testimony to that effect, making the prosecution case highly doubtful, on this count as well. He re-emphasized that the appellant had been framed, as he was aware of the illicit relationship of the prosecutrix with Ramkhiladi, and that, having regard to the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of rape against him. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor, in reply, has submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix, read as a whole, inspires confidence, and thus, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor, in reply, has submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix, read as a whole, inspires confidence, and thus, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. According to her, the opinion of the doctor supports the charge of rape, and that, it, having been proved, amongst others, that broken pieces of the bangles of the prosecutrix had been collected from the place of occurrence, the guilt of the appellant had been proved, beyond doubt. She has dismissed the imputation of false implication, as unfounded. 14. The evidence on record and the rival arguments have been duly considered. 15. Admittedly, if the case of the prosecution is accepted on its face value, the alleged incident had taken place in the afternoon on the bank of a river, where admittedly, villagers did frequent with their cattle. This assumes importance, in view of the statement of the prosecutrix, that during the protracted offending act, she had not only resisted the same, but also cried and screamed for help. It is a common experience that the act, as alleged, is normally committed in seclusion, to ensure absence of any exposure to a third agency. Viewed in that perspective, the plea of the defence that considering the time and the place of the occurrence, the prosecution case lacks in inherent probability, cannot be lightly discarded. This is moreso, as admitted by the prosecution that at the relevant time, there were nearby agricultural fields, and that, other villagers used to take their cattle to the river as well. The contradictions noticed in her statement at the trial and before the police, also do have a bearing on the veracity of her version as a whole. To reiterate, the doctor had mentioned about three bruises on her right hand and lower portion of her back, which the witness stated, could be self acquired as well. Exhibit P-5, the report prepared on the basis of medical examination of the prosecutrix however, indicate that no mark of injury was found on her body, including her vulva. That in her vaginal smear, no sperm was found, was also mentioned. The conclusion recorded, was that there was no sign of fresh rape. This document was exhibited by PW-7, Jeevan Singh, who, at the relevant time, was the SHO, Police Station Rajakheda, and collected, in course of the investigation. That in her vaginal smear, no sperm was found, was also mentioned. The conclusion recorded, was that there was no sign of fresh rape. This document was exhibited by PW-7, Jeevan Singh, who, at the relevant time, was the SHO, Police Station Rajakheda, and collected, in course of the investigation. The bruises referred to by the medical witness PW-5, Dr. N.S. Sarin however, find mention in the report Ex.P-3 prepared by him. The testimony of PW-5, Dr.N.S.Sarin, together with the above exhibited reports and the version of the prosecutrix, if read together, make apparent the contradictions, resulting in incompatibility of the findings and/or the statements relatable thereto. Incidentally, PW-5, Dr.N.S.Sarin did not state anything about rape in his testimony. The FSL Report, Ex.P-10, though indicated that the petticot of the prosecutrix did show stains of human blood, the blood group thereof could not be determined. Ex.P-11, though indicated that human semen was detected in her petticot, and that, the same had been forwarded to the serological division for necessary examination, nothing in addition, is forthcoming. The evidence produced by the prosecution with regard to the commission of rape on the prosecutrix on the date of the incident i.e.14.5.1985 therefore, does not inspire confidence in this context. Having regard to the overall evidence on record bearing on the alleged incident, the appellant's stand of false implication, for the reasons cited hereinabove, cannot be lightly brushed aside. In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against him, beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appellant is set at liberty. His bail bonds stand discharged. Let the records be remitted to the court below. *******