JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.01.188 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.10/86 convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further four months, he is in appeal seeking redress. 2. I have heard Mr.Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Bhramanand Sandu, learned Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan. 3. A written report was lodged on 20.0.186 at about 7.30 p.m. by the prosecutrix Kamli Bai w/o Bharmal with Bhaltha Police Station alleging that on the previous day i.e. 1.0.186 at about 8- a.m. in the morning while she was cutting grass in her field with standing corn crop, the appellant arrived at the place of occurrence, grabbed her from behind, fell her on the ground and forcibly commit sexual intercourse with her. After the offending act was completed, the appellant, according to the written report, left the field, where-after the prosecutrix on her way home weeping, met her father-in-law at a nearby well and disclosed to him the incident. The prosecutrix further stated that on the date of the incident, her husband Bharmal was out of station and on his return on the next date, the report was being lodged. 4. The Police registered a case under Section 376 IPC against the appellant and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the him under the said provision of law. The charge was also framed, accordingly to which, the appellant pleaded "not guilty". At the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses including the prosecutrix, her husband, her father-in-law along-with the doctor, who had medically examined her. The appellant, in course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., reiterated his denial and instead alleged that he had been falsely implicated as there was standing dispute between the two families with regard to a plot of land in his possession. By the impugned judgment and order, however, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 5. Before noticing the rival arguments, it is considered apt to have a bird's eye view of the evidence on the record. 6. PW-1, the prosecutrix Kamli Bai, in her deposition did substantially reiterate her version in the written report. By the impugned judgment and order, however, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 5. Before noticing the rival arguments, it is considered apt to have a bird's eye view of the evidence on the record. 6. PW-1, the prosecutrix Kamli Bai, in her deposition did substantially reiterate her version in the written report. She stated further that at the place of occurrence, the standing corn crop was of the height of 4/5 feet and that she could not raise alarm as her mouth was gagged by the appellant by a handkerchief. She stated as well that she disclosed about the incident to her father-in-law and her mother-in-law and eventually her husband, who returned home on the next day. In cross-examination, she admitted that there was a standing land dispute between the appellant and her father-in-law and that the former had refused to vacate the same (land) in his possession though in between on the issue, several sittings of the Panchyat had been held. She stated that the appellant had even threatened his father-in-law with dire consequences, if he would dare to have him dispossessed from the land. The prosecutrix further stated that the well, where she met her father-in-law, was located about 300-400 feet away from the place of occurrence. She admitted further that before the incident, she had an altercation with the appellant. She stated as well that as she started to cry, the appellant threatened her with a knife. She, however, stated that in her police statement (Exhibit-D1), she did not mention about this fact. She admitted as well that when she along-with her father-in-law and her husband had gone to lodge the written report, her father-in-law had requested the Police to register such a case against the appellant so that he vacates the land in his possession and that he does not dare to involve in a confrontation with him. She admitted as well that the place, where she had been fell, the ground was rough. 7. PW-2, Devilal, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix stated that on the date of occurrence at about a.m., when he was near his well, his daughter-in-law Kamli came to him and disclosed that the appellant had caught her and had used force on her. This witness also stated to have seen the appellant fleeing from the field. 7. PW-2, Devilal, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix stated that on the date of occurrence at about a.m., when he was near his well, his daughter-in-law Kamli came to him and disclosed that the appellant had caught her and had used force on her. This witness also stated to have seen the appellant fleeing from the field. This witness stated that the matter was disclosed to his wife and eventually on the next date, the written report was lodged. In cross-examination, this witness clarified that the prosecutrix had only told him that the appellant had caught her and did not say anything more. 8. PW-3, Jamna Bai, the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix, also in her examination-in-chief stated that the prosecutrix had disclosed to her that the appellant had caught her. She affirmed that the prosecutrix did not tell her anything further. In cross-examination, this witness stated that her son (husband of the prosecurix) had returned from Aklera market on the date of the incident. 9. PW-4 Bharmal, the husband of the prosecutrix, however, stated that he had returned home on the day after the incident where-after on being told by his wife that she had been ravished by the appellant, went to the Bhaltha Police Station along-with her and his father and lodged the written report. 10. PW-5 Dr.Prem Chand Meena, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, stated that no injury on her body or her inner parts had been detected. He stated further that there was no sign of use of force or forcible sexual intercourse. This witness however, deposed that the vaginal swab of the prosecturix was collected and her petticoat containing semen stains were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and report. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the prosecutrix was aged about 20 years and she was married. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the written report being delayed without any explanation, on that ground alone, the prosecution case is liable to be rejected. 12. Apart from contending that the incident as narrated is highly improbable, having regard to the time as well as the place of occurrence, the disclosure in the medical examination totally belly the charge, he urged. 12. Apart from contending that the incident as narrated is highly improbable, having regard to the time as well as the place of occurrence, the disclosure in the medical examination totally belly the charge, he urged. Learned counsel has argued that as would be evident from the prosecution witnesses, there was a standing land dispute between the parties and that the father-in-law of the prosecutrix had insisted with the Police that a case be made out against the appellant so that he vacates the possession of land involved and also withdraws from combative orientations. Learned counsel has further argued that the appellant had been framed and that in the face of the deficient evidence on records, the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with in the interest of justice. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has pleaded that not only the evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain the charge, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which corroborates the existence of the semen on her Ghaghra, establishes in no uncertain terms the complicity of the appellant. He dismissed the plea of false implication of the appellant. 14. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the evidence on record, I am left unconvinced about the veracity of the prosecution case. Even if the time lag of over a day in the submission of the written report is disregarded, the admitted fact is that on the date of the incident, there was a land dispute between the parties. The prosecutrix admitted as well that prior to the incident, there was an altercation between her and the appellant. Noticeably, though she did accuse him of the offence of forcible rape on her to her parents-in-law in categorical terms she stated that he had only caught her and nothing further. Noticeably, the alleged incident had taken place in a field with standing corn crop in the early hours of the day. It is also in evidence that there were other fields around where persons were present. Though, the prosecutrix mentioned that she was kept quiet by gagging her mouth and by wielding a knife, in the statement before the Police, she omitted to refer about the knife. It is also in evidence that there were other fields around where persons were present. Though, the prosecutrix mentioned that she was kept quiet by gagging her mouth and by wielding a knife, in the statement before the Police, she omitted to refer about the knife. The medical report (Exhibit-P1) as has been owned and explained by PW-5 Prem Chand Meena, did not indicate any injury whatsoever on her body and, more particularly, on her private parts. The doctor also could not record any definite opinion about commission of rape on her. The prosecutrix on the date of the alleged incident was a married lady aged 20 years and therefore, the presence of semen of her Ghaghra, even otherwise, does not ipso facto proves the culpability of the appellant. Absence of injury on her back in particular having regard to the place of occurrence and the ground, on which the prosecutrix was said to have been felled and subjected to the alleged forcible act, also detracts from the trustworthiness of the prosecution case. 15. On a cumulative consideration of the above aspects, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the charge to the hilt. The impugned judgment and order is thus, set aside. 16. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC. He is thus, set at liberty. The bail bonds stand discharged. The office would remit the records.Appeal allowed. *******