JUDGMENT The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and the victim were found at the house of the victim (P.W.2) by father of P.W.2. The appellant escaped by removing tin sheet of roof. Father of P.W.2 reported the matter to police stating inter alia that he had seen a thief coming out of roof of his house. The incident had occurred at village Satefal. The father of victim had gone to Hinganghat and he returned at about 12-00. On his return, as stated, he had seen the appellant running away from the roof of his house. On arrival of police, the victim was found unconscious. She was taken to police station and her statement was recorded. Her statement revealed that the appellant had committed rape on her. She was sent for medical examination. The appellant was arrested and he was also sent for medical examination. Clothes of the victim and the appellant were seized by the police and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Magistrate. 2. When the case came up before the learned Additional Session Judge for hearing, he framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and later on added one more charge for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The respondent had examined seven witnesses in support of the charges levelled against the appellant. P.W.2 is the prime witness in this case. She has stated that she was preparing to go to school at about 11-30 a.m. The appellant suddenly entered her house and took her to kitchen by dragging. He spread a bed on earth and attempted to commit rape on her. She, therefore, cried. Her grandmother saw the incident from the window and therefore, the appellant ran away. It is further stated by this witness that the appellant had, in fact, committed rape on her. 4. P.W.3-Madhukar is father of P.W.2. He knew the appellant. On the date of incident, he had gone to Hinganghat at about 7-00 a.m. and he returned at about 12-30 p.m. Door of his house was found closed from inside. It is further stated by this witness that the appellant had, in fact, committed rape on her. 4. P.W.3-Madhukar is father of P.W.2. He knew the appellant. On the date of incident, he had gone to Hinganghat at about 7-00 a.m. and he returned at about 12-30 p.m. Door of his house was found closed from inside. He had seen the appellant coming out of tin roof of his house and jumping in the lane. He tried to catch hold of the appellant but could not succeed. He, therefore, reported the matter to police. Police immediately rushed to the spot and broke open the door. P. W.2 was found unconscious. She was taken to police station and her statement was recorded after she regained consciousness. 5. P. W.4-Chandrabhan is grandfather of P.W.2. His evidence is hearsay inasmuch as he has stated as to what had been told to him by his wife. His wife, who had allegedly seen the appellant, was no more on the date when the evidence commenced before the trial Court. Evidence of this witness is worthless and does not require any discussion. 6. P.W.5-Gopal is the panch witness, who was present at the time of seizure of clothes of the appellant. He, however, has not supported the prosecution case, P.W.6 - Shakuntala is mother of P.W.-2, Her evidence is also hearsay, She was in the agricultural field at the time of incident and she herself did not know anything about the incident. P.W.-7-Rajendra is the panch witness in whose presence clothes of P.W.2 were seized. P.W.8-Bhaurao Gharote is the Police Officer, who had recorded First Information Report and had carried out further investigation. It is stated by this witness that the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. 7. The Forensic Science Laboratory had reported that neither semen nor spermatozoa was detected on vaginal swab, vaginal slide and pubic hairs of P.W.2. 8. P.W.1-Kiran Mangrulkar is the Medical Officer, who had examined P.W.2 and had opined that P.W.2 was capable of entering into sexual intercourse. P.W.1 was not able to give any opinion as to whether she was subjected to sexual intercourse. She did not find any evidence of seminal stain over private part of P.W.2. She had noticed a very small superficial laceration present on posterior wall in introitus. No swelling or redness was found around vulva or vagina. P.W.1 was not able to give any opinion as to whether she was subjected to sexual intercourse. She did not find any evidence of seminal stain over private part of P.W.2. She had noticed a very small superficial laceration present on posterior wall in introitus. No swelling or redness was found around vulva or vagina. Hymen was found torn. It is admitted by this witness in cross-examination that superficial laceration could be caused by other than the sexual intercourse and hymen could be ruptured due to many reasons including sexual intercourse. 9. It appears that ossification test report was admitted during the course of trial in which it was stated that P.W.2 was in between 17 to 19 years old to. 10. As far as age of the victim girl is concerned, P.W.2 herself has stated in her evidence that her date of birth was 07-6-1979. As such she was more than 16 years old at the time of incident. In addition to this, the ossification test also does not support the prosecution case. The learned trial Court has rightly found that P.W.2 was more than 16 years old at the time of incident. 11. The learned trial Court though has rejected the evidence of P.W.2 that she was subjected to rape, has accepted her evidence that an attempt was made by the appellant to commit rape on her. To examine whether the finding given by the trial Court is right or wrong, it is necessary to reevaluate the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.2 is very cryptic. At one stage she states that an attempt was made by the appellant and at other stage she states that the appellant had committed rape. Considering the cryptic nature of evidence of P.W.2, it was highly risky on the part of the trial Court to believe her evidence that an attempt was made by the appellant to commit rape on her. The evidence of P.W.2 regarding an attempt of rape is, in my opinion, result of insistence on the part of parents of P.W.2. It basically appears to me that P.W.2 and the appellant had a love affair and the appellant had gone to the house of P.W.2 on the invitation or by consent of P.W.2. This view can be substantiated by the falsity of evidence of P.W.3. It basically appears to me that P.W.2 and the appellant had a love affair and the appellant had gone to the house of P.W.2 on the invitation or by consent of P.W.2. This view can be substantiated by the falsity of evidence of P.W.3. Though P.W.3 has stated that P.W.2 was found unconscious P.W.2 herself has not stated anything about the same. It is nowhere stated by P.W.2 that she had become unconscious and had regained consciousness in presence of police. The police officer, who was called to break open the door, has not been examined. It is not clear from the evidence as to which police officer had visited the spot and had taken P.W.2 and P.W.3 to the police station. What appears to me is that grandmother of P.W.2 had seen P.W.2 and the appellant in the same room and therefore, P.W.2 was compelled to make a statement against the appellant. 12. The medical evidence does not indicate that there was an incident of rape. As far as attempt to commit rape is concerned, there is no description of the incident in the evidence of P.W.2. Though it is stated by P.W.3 that P.W.2 was lying unconscious, he has not stated in what condition P.W.2 was lying and in which room of the house she was lying. 13. In brief, it can be said that the appellant and P.W.2 were in love and they were caught by grandmother of P.W.2. In the meantime, father of P.W.2 had also reached and therefore, the appellant escaped from the rooftop. Neither the charge under Section 452 nor the charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code could be substantiated by the respondent. The judgment and order of the trial Court cannot be sustained. Hence, I pass the following order. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.236/1995 on 03-2-1999 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 511 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.