JUDGMENT : Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. For 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.d. to suffer R.I. For 6 months vide Judgment and Order dated 27th August, 1993 by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 354 of 1882. Hence, this Appeal. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows: "On 9th September, 1991, the prosecutrix lodged a complaint at Khed Police Station alleging therein that she is the permanent resident of village Chandus, Taluka Khed. She is a mother of 3 daughters and 2 sons. Her husband resides at Bombay. She had returned to her village just four days prior to 8/9/1991. One Vilas Roundal is the resident of Chandus village and he resides near her house and he is working at Chakan Motor Garage. On 8/9/1991 at about 9.30 a.m. she had been to Khed for weekly Bazar from Chandus. She learnt that her daughter Vimal was also to come to Khed. She waited at Khed till evening to meet her daughter. However, her daughter did not turn up. She therefore, decided to return to village Chandus by S.T. Bus. She boarded the bus. There were some persons from her village in the said bus and the accused Vilas Roundal was also travelling in the said bus. She was seated near the conductor. She alighted from the bus at Bhagat Phata. The accused had also alighted. When she had reached near the spot called '"Annache Ran", she realised that somebody had caught hold of her from behind and pushed her down. She identified the said person as Vilas Roundal. She requested him to allow her to go home and that she was like his mother and sister. At that time, he initially outraged her modesty. He gave fist blow on her cheek due to which she fell down and thereafter, he had committed sexual intercourse with her. She then rescued herself and reached home and then she narrated entire episode to her son and daughter. On the next day, she approached to the police station and lodged a report. She was referred for medical examination." 2. She then rescued herself and reached home and then she narrated entire episode to her son and daughter. On the next day, she approached to the police station and lodged a report. She was referred for medical examination." 2. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 110 of 1991 was registered at Khed Police Station against accused appellant for offence punishable under Section 376, 323, 341.506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on the same day. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 30th October. 1991. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 354 of 1992. The charge was framed against the accused on 30th June, 1993. The accused had pleaded innocence and had denied all the charges levelled against him. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused. 3. P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed before the court in consonance with her first information report to some extent. She has deposed before the Court that she was an indoor patient for 4 days. She had sustained injury on her cheek. She had identified the accused in the court. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that she happens to be the maternal aunt of the father of the accused and hence, the accused would be related to her as a grand son. It is pertinent to note that although she has stated in her first information report that the accused was working at Chakan in a Motor Garrage, in the cross-examination, she has feigned ignorance about the service of the accused. It was suggested to her that she has borrowed loan from the accused at the time of marriage of her eldest daughter and therefore, the relations between the accused and the prosecutrix are strained. However, the said suggestion is denied. The prosecutrix has proceeded to state on oath that although they were resident of the same village, they never visited the house of each other. She has denied the suggestion that the relations between parties are strained. It is elicited in the cross-examination that she had alighted at Bhagat Phata alone. She had not seen the accused while alighting from the bus. There is an omission to the extent that she had requested the accused to listen to her, but he denied to do so. She has denied the suggestion that the relations between parties are strained. It is elicited in the cross-examination that she had alighted at Bhagat Phata alone. She had not seen the accused while alighting from the bus. There is an omission to the extent that she had requested the accused to listen to her, but he denied to do so. She has admitted the contents in the first information report that she had fallen down on the floor due to fist blow given by the accused on her cheek. She has admitted that after falling down, she could not scuffle with the accused but she tried to scuffle prior to falling down. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination she has feigned ignorance as to whether she was undergoing menstrual cycle on the date of incident. She had admitted that she had found some blood stains on her saree. She had categorically admitted that accused did not alight with her. So there is no question of any doubt as the young boy accused was with her. The suggestion in respect of the political rivalry in the village has been categorically denied by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was not confronted with her first information report and therefore, omissions and contradictions have not been marked. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused had admitted the medical case papers under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Upon perusal of the medical case papers, it is noticed that there are no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, although the scene of offence indicates that the incident had occurred at a rough surface. There was half cut grass on the said surface. Inspite of it, the prosecutrix has not sustained any abrasion, contusion or any other injury of the like nature on her person. The medical case papers show that she disclosed to the doctor that her mouth was gagged by the accused and he had threatened her that he would kill her. However, the said aspect does not find place either in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor in her substantive evidence. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence in the medical case papers to remotely indicate that she was subjected to sexual intercourse as alleged by her. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence in the medical case papers to remotely indicate that she was subjected to sexual intercourse as alleged by her. Her medical examination has taken place at Sasoon Hospital, Pune on 9/9/1991 at 7.20 p.m. The Chemical Analysis report is at Exh. 16. The C. A. report indicates that no semen was detected on exhibits 1 and 2. The blood group of the accused is AB, whereas the blood stain found on the saree of the prosecutrix is of blood group "A" i.e. the blood group of the prosecutrix herself. Hence, it is clear that the C.A. report negates the case of the prosecutrix. 6. The prosecution has examined P. W. 2 Balu Bade who had travelled in the said bus alongwith accused. He has deposed before the court that he had boarded the bus at Khed. He has specifically stated that he does not know PW.1. 7. P. W. 3 Haribhau Borade is the distant relative of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 has deposed before the court that he had accompanied P.W. I and her son to the police station and that P.W. 1 had given the statement to the police in his presence. He is in service of the Revenue Department and is working as Circle Inspector. 8. P.W.4 is Baban Gavhane. He is also a resident of village Chandus. He has acted as a panch and has signed the panchanama of the scene of offence and has admitted the contents of the panchanama. It is elicited in his cross-examination that the police had not told him the details of the panchanama and the reason for which it was drawn. He has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that the panchanama was already written and therefore, he cannot say as to whether the contents of the panchanama are true or false. The scene of offence panchanama is at Exh. 20 which indicate that the incident had taken place on rough road. 9. P.W. 5 Manik Karle is the panch for the seizure of clothes of the prosecutrix. I le was summoned to act as a panch though police party. The panchanama is at Exh. 22. 10. P.W. 6 Narayan Dixit is another panch for the seizure panchanama of the clothes of the accused. 11. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. 9. P.W. 5 Manik Karle is the panch for the seizure of clothes of the prosecutrix. I le was summoned to act as a panch though police party. The panchanama is at Exh. 22. 10. P.W. 6 Narayan Dixit is another panch for the seizure panchanama of the clothes of the accused. 11. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed before the Court in respect of the steps taken by him in the course of investigation. 12. It is a matter of record that besides the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, there is no corroborative evidence in the present case. The learned APP therefore, submits that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned APP further submits that taking into consideration the age of the prosecutrix and the age of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has awarded sentence of less than minimum i.e. of 5 years substantive sentence. He has supported the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge in the Judgment while convicting the accused. 13. The learned Counsel appointed for the appellant has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra & anr. Reported, (2006) 10 SCC 92 . She has drawn attention of this Court to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows: "It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen." Therefore, according to the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant, unless the substantive evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence of the court, conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. According to her, the testimony of the prosecutrix has to be sterling testimony, which leaves no scope for any doubt whatsoever. 14. According to her, the testimony of the prosecutrix has to be sterling testimony, which leaves no scope for any doubt whatsoever. 14. In the present case, upon perusal of the records and upon hearing the submissions of the respective Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence of the court. The reason for levelling such serious allegations are not known. There is no evidence on record worth it's name to corroborate the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix. There are inherent inconsistencies, material omissions and contradictions in the substantive evidence of the prosecutrix. The C.A. report has negated the version of the prosecutrix. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, following order is passed: "ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide Judgment and Order dated 27th August, 1993 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellant herein is acquitted of the charge under Section 376of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) His bail bond stands cancelled. (v) The fine amount if paid be refunded to him. (vi) Writ be issued accordingly." 16. Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Before parting with the Judgment, this Court record appreciation for the efforts taken by Counsel Ms. Radhika Kamat. The Court had appointed Advocate Ms. Radhika Kamat on 11/6/2014. She has graciously accepted to lead for the appellant and espouse the case of the appellant. She has put her best of efforts. The Court cannot refrain from recording appreciation in favour of Ms. Radhika Kamat. The legal fees to be paid to her by the High Court Legal Services Committee are quantified at Rs. 5000/-. The said fees be paid to Advocate Ms. Radhika Kamat within three months from today.