JUDGMENT : Mr. G.R. Moolchandani, J. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against judgment dated 27th October 1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.51/1983 whereby the learned trial court has acquitted accused-respondents No.1 to 5 from offence under sections 452, 342, 376, 395 IPC extending benefit of doubt. 2. As per facts of the case, the complainant Dule Singh lodged a report with Police Station, Jamsar. The details of the report alleged that in the night of 14/15th February 1983 Dule Singh slept with his family after dining, lamp was alighted, around one o’clock in the night the complainant and his wife awoke on dog's barking and on getting awaken they found 7 armymen were there, having guns, beaten them with fists, guns and after tying complainant with a string, raped Barja Devi, wife of the complainant. Barja Devi and two of their small daughters kept on crying but ignoring their cries, all of them committed gang rape with Barja Devi. After hearing cries and chaos, neighbour Ram Singh approached there but armed persons did not dare him to come near and while escaping all army men looted and took away ornaments of complainant. While leaving, they threatened to kill in case of action and uttered that they are army men and no wrong could be done to them. The complainant remained confined in the hut during night and on day break he went to Sarpanch and his family members and informed about the incident. Complainant and his wife conveyed to Bikaner hospital and the complainant recorded his statement on 15th February 1983 at 05:15PM in the hospital, on basis of which Exhibit P25 unnumbered FIR was lodged and was reduced into writing in the Roznamcha at 08:45PM, which became basis of Exhibit 8 FIR No.15/1983 dated 16th February 1983 under sections 376, 395, 342/34 IPC. 3. After investigation, challan was filed against Rajvir Singh, Ram Gopal, Risal Singh, Shiv Varan and Balvir Singh and after framing of charges under sections 452, 342, 376, 395 IPC and recording statement of witnesses PW1 Khushal Chand, SHO, PS Sadar, Bikaner, PW2 Mahendra Singh, ASI, PW3 Ramchandra, PW4 Karni Singh, PW5 Karan Singh, PW6 Premdan, PW7 Dr. Smt. Chaman Jain, PW8 Dr. P.N. Mathur, PW9 Govind Singh, PW10 Dr. Smt. Chaman Jain, PW8 Dr. P.N. Mathur, PW9 Govind Singh, PW10 Dr. Smt. Chitra Sareen, PW11 Ibrahim Khan, PW12 Bhanwar Singh, PW13 Lieutenant Colonel R.K. Mehta, PW14 Captain Harjeet Singh, PW14 Ram Singh, PW16 Barja Devi, PW17 Dule Singh, PW18 Rameshwar Lal, PW19 Bagdawat Ram, PW20 Kalyan Singh, PW21 Shaitan Singh, PW22 Muneer Shah, PW23 Laxmi Lal Bhatnagar, PW24 Mohan Singh, ASI, PW25 Kishore Singh, PW26 Umesh Kumar Sharma, RJS, PW27 Ratan Singh, PW28 Abdul Tayum, PW29 Vishnu Bhagwan, PW30 Bhopal Singh, statement of accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and an opportunity was given to the accused persons to adduce their evidence. 4. Learned trial court after taking into consideration entire evidence, while appreciating the evidence of prosecutrix found several contradictions in her evidence, non-corroboration of sexual outrage by medical evidence and disbelieving the recovery and involvement of the accused army men, passed impugned judgment dated 27th October 1984 acquitting all the 5 army personnel extending benefit of doubt. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor while arguing the appeal has contended that there were specific allegations and candid evidence of the victim prosecutrix narrating woeful tale of rape having been committed by the intruding army men, learned trial court has committed wrong in disbelieving her statement. Recovery of ornaments, which were recovered on the information of accused army-men was also negated by the trial court unlawfully. The accused persons were properly identified by the victim during identification test parade. While referring the statement of the prosecutrix and complainant Dule Singh, learned counsel vehemently argued that the victim lady sustained injuries on parts of her body but the same have not been properly evaluated and on wrong and misconceived findings, respondent accused persons have been acquitted, prosecution has adduced positive type of evidence and there was manifest evidence of the prosecutrix, who was none else but the actual sufferer of the outrageous sexual offence but ignoring all the positive evidence, learned trial court committed grave illegality and perversity by acquitting the respondent accused persons, so the findings of the trial court be reversed and the respondent accused persons be convicted. 6. 6. Per contra, relying upon the judgments cited as 2010(2) Cr.LR (Raj) 1249, Mohan Lal @ Manna Lal v. State of Raj., 2011(Supp)CrLR (SC) 398, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pooran Singh & ors., 2011 Cr.LR (SC) 367, Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India, 2007 (1) CrLR (Raj.) 702, Banti @ Vikki @ Sultan v. State of Raj. and 2007 (1) Cr.LR (Raj) 516, Gopal v. State of Raj., learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the trial court has not committed any wrong and has passed non-perverse, correct judgment. There was no evidence of army vehicle having been driven out of army barrack/camp during said night and no documentary evidence with respect to movement of such vehicle during said night was produced before the trial court. Referring to several parts of evidence of the prosecution, learned counsel has pointed out that the medical evidence do not corroborate any forceful cohabitation. 7. Statement of the prosecutrix that she has sustained swelling and injuries on her private parts did not find any truthfulness in evidence since all the Doctors produced by the prosecution in evidence have found that there was no injury or swelling of any kind on private parts of the prosecutrix and nothing abnormal was found in or around vaginal parts of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix has brought forth a story of involvement of 7 army men whereas only 5 have been charge-sheeted and if 7 army men allegedly committed gang rape in a brutal beating way then a pregnant lady would have certainly suffered serious injuries on genital parts but no such injury was detected during medical examination, which too have been narrated by Doctors in their evidence. 8. Referring to statement recorded by the prosecutrix, learned counsel has further stated that there are several grave contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix that she did not observe wearings of all the accused persons and who, for how much time committed outrageous sexual assault, whether there was any ejaculation of seminal fluid or not, even no stains or spots or semen have been found on the floor as well as swab and smears taken as samples and FSL report has also not supported any such spot or presence of semen or its detection. Fact of neighbour Ram Singh having been approached on cry just after the crime is also wrong since Ram Singh has denied such a fact and complainant's say that Ram Singh was having a hut in the agriculture field adjacent to their cultivating land is also wrong since Ram Singh specifically stated that there is no such hut on his agriculture field. Lodging of FIR is also delayed, which has made whole episode a concocted one and delay in lodging the FIR has been caused because of fabrication of false allegations and a fable is extended to extort the army men. 9. Learned counsel has further argued that the respondent army men were intentionally detained in several Police stations and were shown to the prosecutrix prior to identification parade and they were not kept properly veiled as their faces were kept uncovered and they were not kept 'baparda'. So far as recovery of alleged ornaments is concerned, that too has been made from open field/area and the recovery witnesses also not supported the recovery. Referring to evidence of seizure, learned counsel has further submitted that there are several infirmities and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, which has properly been appreciated by the trial court and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish and authenticate commission of alleged offence. He has further stated that in all probabilities, 7 army men serving the Nation at a border place can never adventure to intrude in a hut of a villager and after beating and looting, commit gang rape upon a lady and in all probabilities such allegations are itself false and there is no iota of truth in the prosecution story. The appeal is devoid of any merit. Learned trial court has passed a reasonable order and appeal be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, examined the impugned order and material available on record. 11. After hearing both sides and after perusing and reappraisal of entire evidence available on record, it is worthy to observe the medical evidence which is of significance in outrageous sexual assault cases, evidence of Dr. Smt. Chaman Jain (PW7) and Dr. Smt. Chitra Sareen (PW10) is important. PW7 Dr. 11. After hearing both sides and after perusing and reappraisal of entire evidence available on record, it is worthy to observe the medical evidence which is of significance in outrageous sexual assault cases, evidence of Dr. Smt. Chaman Jain (PW7) and Dr. Smt. Chitra Sareen (PW10) is important. PW7 Dr. Smt. Chaman Jain has stated: Jherh cjtknsoh dh lkekU; gkyr Bhd FkhA 'kjhj ds ckg~; ftLe dh pksVsa esfMdy T;qfjLV dks tkap gsrq jsQj dh xbZA mDr MkW0 ih0,u0 ekFkqj M~;wVh ij FksA cjtknsoh ds xqIrkad ij dksbZ pksV dk fu'kku ugha FkkA xqIrkax ds ckyksa ij dksbZ LVsafuax ugha FksA tka?kksa ds Hkhrjh fgLlks ij Hkh fdlh /kCcs dk fpUg ugha FkkA gkbZeu QVk gqvk FkkA iqjkus QVs gq, iSDVl ekStwn FksA xqIrkax ij dksbZ rktk pksV dk fu'kku ugha FkkA cjtknsoh us pkj cPps gksuk crk;kA tks pkjksa yM+fd;ka FkhA ftuesa ls ,d ejuk crk;kA ekfld /keZ lkekU;r% rhu ekg igys ekfld /keZ gqvk Fkk mlds ckn ugha gqvkA ijLiSD;wye tkap ls ljosDl o oStkbZuk LoLFk FksA xqIrkax ls Lokc o LykbZMl jklk;fud ijh{k.k gsrq fy;s tkdj lqjf{kr fd;s x;sA ;qV~l 10 ls 12 lIrkg dh lkbZt dk FkkA cfYd Hkkjh FkkA ,UVhoVsZM Fkk ,UVh~ysDl Fkk o eksckbZy fLFkfr esa FkkA QksfuZ;kQzh FksA fMLpktZ LoLFk FkkA Jherh cjtk nsoh ds 'kjhj ij igus gqos diM+s ?kk?kjk vksMuk] Cykmt o dqrkZ dkapyh dCts esa fy;s FksA ftudks lhy can fd;k x;kA Lokc o LykbZM o diM+s tks dCts esa fy;s lhy can gkyr esa esfMdy T;qfjLV dks jklk;fud ijh{k.k djkus ds fy, Hkst x;sA ftu ij lheus o thok.kq dh tkap gsrq Hksts x;sA mijksDr tkap ls esjh jk; fuEufyf[kr gS%& This examination was done on 15th February 1983, which appears to be without delay. PW10 Dr. Chitra Sareen has also stated that mijksDr tkap ls ;g dguk lEHko u gha fd Jherh cjtknsoh ds lkFk fudV Hkwr esa lEHkksx fd;k x;k gksA og lEHkksx djus dh vknh Fkh fQj Hkh iq[rk jk; LykbZMl o Lokc dh jk;k;fud ijh{k.k fjiksVZ vkus ds ckn gh dgk tk ldrk gSA 12. FSL report, which is Ex.73, is available on record of the trial court which specifically lays semen was not detected in Exhibit-2 Odhani, Exhibit-3 Kurti, Exhibit-4 Kanchali, Exhibit-5 Vaginal swab and Exhibit-6 Vaginal smear. There are several contradictions and flaws with respect to evidence produced by the prosecution. FSL report, which is Ex.73, is available on record of the trial court which specifically lays semen was not detected in Exhibit-2 Odhani, Exhibit-3 Kurti, Exhibit-4 Kanchali, Exhibit-5 Vaginal swab and Exhibit-6 Vaginal smear. There are several contradictions and flaws with respect to evidence produced by the prosecution. Detention of accused persons is stated to be on 26th February 1983 per SHO PW1 Khushal Chand whereas PW16 prosecutrix Smt Barja Devi has stated that on the subsequent day ^^ftl jkst ;g ?kVuk gqbZ mlds nwljs jkst gh eq>s ekywe gks x;k Fkk fd esjs lkFk cykRdkj djus okys lkrksa vkneh idM+s x;sA** This factum itself falsifies and tarnishes the prosecution story. 13. Learned trial court has properly evaluated the aspect of non-finding of human semen on floor or 'raali' on which the lady was slept and repeatedly raped by 7 robust army men but no such evidence was collected and found at 'raali' or floor or other clothing and mere detection of semen on 'lehenga' could be of no necessary inference that the accused were responsible for that. 14. Prosecutrix Smt. Barja Devi and her husband Dule Singh have stated that they remained inside their hut for whole night out of fear but PW21 Shaitan Singh has stated something else by saying that ftl jkst ?kVuk gqbZ mlh jkr dks djhc ,d cts jkr dks nqYysflag gekjs xkao esa vk;k FkkA vkSj ;g dgk fd gkydj ekSdk ns[kksaA fQj eSa jkr dks nqYysflag ds lkFk ekSds ij x;sA eSa] nqYysflag] fd'kksjflag] Hkwjflag vkSj nks rhu vkneh vkSj x;sA and if this was the story then lodging of FIR belatedly falsifies and make the story of the prosecution doubtful. Smt Barja Devi has stated that esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;k ,d nks vkneh rks /;ku vk;k ckdh dk ughaA [kksVk dke djus okyksa esa ls gqfy;k ,d nks vknfe;ksa dks /;ku vk;k ckdh dk ugha vk;kA-------- ge jkr Hkj vius >kSaiM+s esa gh lks;s jgsA whereas her husband PW17 Dule Singh has stated in his cross-examination eq>s rks tc eqyfteku jokuk gq, ftl oDr >kSaiM+s ds ckgj mBkdj QSad fn;kA 15. On the basis of evidence of Lt. Col. On the basis of evidence of Lt. Col. R.K. Mehta (PW13), it is clear that an internal inquiry was conducted but the same has not been produced before the trial court and learned trial court has also rendered its findings on this aspect as well and observed in para 55 as follows: ^^55- yxrk gS fd feysVªh vf/kdkfj;ksa us dksbZ tkap dh ftlds dkxtkr gekjs ikl ugha vkSj ftlds ckjs esa tqckuh lk{; ih0MCY;w 13 ysf~VusaV duZy Jh vkj0ds0 esgrk o ih0MCY;w0&14 dSIVsu Jh gjthrflag us nh gS vkSj ih0MCY;w0&30 Hkksikyflag vuqla/kkudrkZ vf/kdkjh ds lk{; ds lkFk bu lc dks i<+s rks ;g izdV gks tkrk gS fd feysVªh vf/kdkfj;ksa us tkap dj vfHk;qDrx.k dks cka/kdj j[k fy;k Fkk fQj iqfyl Fkkusnkj us mu vfHk;qDrx.k ds uke ,d&,d dj crk;k rks feysVªh okyksa us muds le{k is'k dj fn;kA tkap ds dkxtkr ds vHkko esa feysVªh vf/kdkfj;ksa us tks Hkh jk; nh gS og vksihfu;u ,foMsal gS lk{; esa xzkgkz ugha vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ;g fizT;wfMl iSnk djrh gSA** 16. So far as evidence of PW13 Lt. Col. R.K. Mehta and PW14 Capt. Harjeet Singh are concerned, they have contradicted the statements made under section 161 CrPC and have been cross-examined by the prosecution itself, so testimony of these witnesses has also become dubious. 17. The recovery has also been made from open place which does not infuse confidence and trust. Statement of recovery witness PW18 Rameshwar Lal is also significant, as he has stated ^^eSa ,d txg tkdj iqfy;s ij cSB x;kA Fkkusnkj us ;s reke tsoj ykdj esjs lkeus is'k fd;s vkSj eSaus rksy fn;sA** Presence of prosecutrix Smt Barja Devi and her husband Dule Singh on recovery point has also made these recoveries doubtful and this aspect has also been appreciated by the trial court. The prosecutrix has failed to identify one of the accused out of 5 at the time of identification parade. Involvement of 7 army men has been complained whereas challan has been filed only against 5 of them, out of which one Ramgopal Singh has also not been identified at the time of identification test parade. 18. The totality of afore discussed appreciation of material is suffice to indicate that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The totality of afore discussed appreciation of material is suffice to indicate that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. A lady allegedly forcibly gang raped by seven army men, complaining of severe injuries, swelling on vaginal parts and on medical examination no such injury to private parts and absence of any such injury or swelling on vagina or around makes whole say dubious and doubtful alleged event. In view of the above, this Court see no reason to hold that the learned trial court has committed any error in acquitting respondents No.1 to 5 from the charges levelled against them. Hence, the instant criminal appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed.