JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Appellants had faced trial in F.I.R. No. 87/2008 registered at Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 342, 366 376(2)(G) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and ion 3(1)(XII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of cities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act"). 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 23.4.2008 prosecutrix had gone along with her father-in-law to get medicine as she was not feeling well. Hospital was closed and she met her son Babli on the shop where he was employed. She told her son that she was not feeling well as she was suffering from fever, vomiting and loose motion. Thereafter, prosecutrix went to a nearby chemist shop and took medicine. Then the prosecutrix along with her father-in-law came towards the market from the side of power house. One black colour jeep was standing there. 2-3 persons got down from the jeep i.e. Kaluwa, Bablu and Roopi. The said persons forcibly made the prosecutrix to sit in the jeep, Prosecutrix raised alarm but Bablu switched on some machine in the jeep. When Prosecutrix raised alarm, Kaluwa shut her mouth. Then the said persons drove the vehicle to a two-storey house. Prosecutrix was taken forcibly to the first floor and offence of rape was committed. Case of the prosecutrix further is that she became unconscious after the offence was committed and she regained her consciousness in the morning and found herself on an unpaved path. Then the Prosecutrix reached home and narrated the occurrence to her husband, ere after, matter was reported to the police. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused. 4. Charge was framed against the appellants under Sections 366, 376(2)(G) and 342 I.P.C. So far as appellant Kaluwa is concerned, charge was also framed against him under Section 3(II)(V) of the Act. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, appellants when examined under Section 313 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Appellants examined one witness in their defence. 6. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 20.2.2010 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342 I.P.C. luce, the present appeal by the appellants. 7. Appellants examined one witness in their defence. 6. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 20.2.2010 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342 I.P.C. luce, the present appeal by the appellants. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Case of the prosecutrix was that she was accompanied by her father-in-law, when the accused forcibly took her away in a jeep. However, father-in-law of the prosecutrix was not examined as during trial. Moreover, in case, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix was accompanying her in the market, he would have raised hue and cry and would have immediately lodged a report with the police. However, in the present case, F.I.R. was got registered on 25.4.2008. Learned Counsel has further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, prosecutrix had submitted compromise deed and wherein she has stated that she had no objection if the appellants were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 8. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the appeal. 9. Learned Counsel for the complainant has admitted that the factum of compromise effected between the parties. 10. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 deposed as per the contents of the F.I.R. So far as PW-3 Hukum husband of the prosecutrix is concerned he has deposed as per facts narrated to him by his wife. 11. Babli son of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-5. The said witness deposed that on 23.4.2008 his mother had met him at about 2-2.30 PM. On his asking, his mother had told him that she was suffering from fever, loose motion and vomiting and had come to take medicine and thereafter his mother had towards the market and he went inside the shop. When he reached homer about 9-10 PM, he told his father that his mother had met him as she had cons to take medicine but then he did not know where she had gone. Then he went to sleep. In the Morning at about 7-8 AM he went to the juice shop and came home at about 9-10 PM. His mother met him and she started crying. The said witness asked his mother as to where she had gone and his mother told him that it was not worth telling him. 12. Then he went to sleep. In the Morning at about 7-8 AM he went to the juice shop and came home at about 9-10 PM. His mother met him and she started crying. The said witness asked his mother as to where she had gone and his mother told him that it was not worth telling him. 12. The story put-forth by the prosecution fails to inspire. In the present case, the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix had gone to the market to purchase medicine as she was not feeling well. Prosecutrix met her son in the market and told him that she was not feeling well. However, the son of prosecutrix made no effort to get the medicine for his mother and rather did not bother to know where his mother had gone. The son of the prosecutrix come home in the evening and slept, although, he knew that his mother had noted home. The said witness also knew that his mother was not well. The behaviour of the son of the prosecutrix is thus unnatural and his statement fails to advance the prosecution case. Son of the prosecutrix should have inquired from his grand father about the whereabouts of his mother as he knew that his mother had gone towards the market along with his grand-father. 13. The other major lacuna, in the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix was accompanied by her father-in-law. In case, the prosecutrix had been forcible taken away by the appellants in the market, father-in-law of the pros should have raised hue and cry and should have immediately informed his son or grand son qua the occurrence. Moreover, son of the prosecutrix was working in a nearby shop and father-in-law of the prosecutrix could have contacted immediately. The fact that father-in-law of the prosecutrix was not examined during trial is fatal to the prosecution story. 14. So far as the husband of the prosecutrix is concerned, he has nan qua the occurrence as disclosed to him by his wife. The said witness should have also asked his father immediately about the whereabouts of his wife as his wife had allegedly gone to the market with his father. 14. So far as the husband of the prosecutrix is concerned, he has nan qua the occurrence as disclosed to him by his wife. The said witness should have also asked his father immediately about the whereabouts of his wife as his wife had allegedly gone to the market with his father. This witness in his cross-examination deposed that he had talked to his father on the next day at about 4-5 a.m. Before this, his father had neither told him anything nor he had asked. Thus the behaviour of the husband of the prosecutrix is also not natural. 15. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Prosecution is required to establish its case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. However, in the present case, the prosecution case is not free from doubt. The statements of prosecution witnesses fail to inspire confidence. 16. Thus, Trial Court has erred in ordering conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342 I.P.C. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment/order of conviction and sentence dated 20.2.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them by giving them benefit of doubt. Appellants Kaluwa Ram, Roopi and Vinod @ Babli are in custody and they be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.