ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Appellant, Lal Babu Yadav @ Lala @ Lalan Yadav has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, under Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2014 passed by First Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Bhojpur, Ara in SC/ST Case No.56/2012 arising out of Imadpur P.S. Case No.25/2012. 2. PW.1, Kalawati Devi gave her fardbeyan on 18.07.2012 at about 04:00 PM alleging inter alia that she happens to be resident of village-Sahiyara, P.S.-Imadpur and happens to be Ravi Das by caste. She happens to be Mamta Volunteer at PHC, Tarari since 2010. She had further disclosed that she used to go to PHC, Tarari from her house on bare foot. In usual manner, while she was going to PHC, Tarari and reached near Mahua tree fifty yards north to Dharampur Aahar 500 yards north to Dharampur village at about 08:30 AM one boy who was in vest, a sando having towel over his body came from behind, caught hold her breast and tried to threw her on ground and during course thereof, he attempted to commit rape. As she protested, on account thereof, there was push and pull and during midst thereof, she had given Chhapal blow. She also began to raise alarm whereupon that boy ran away towards eastern side. When she reached at the pitch road then she inquired from a boy with regard to identity of a boy who ran away who disclosed that he happens to be son of Mochhu Yadav of village-Dharampur. Then thereafter, she had complained to the family members of Mochhu Yadav after going to his place who scolded her. Then, she further inquired about the identity of the aforesaid boy and during course thereof, came to know her name as Lala Yadav aged about 23 years, son of Balkeshwar @ Mochhu Yadav and further, claimed to identify. Then thereafter, she had gone to PHC Tarari and then, during course of returning she gone to P.S. and recorded her statement. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Imadpur P.S. Case No.25/2012 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of charge sheet. Then thereafter, she had gone to PHC Tarari and then, during course of returning she gone to P.S. and recorded her statement. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Imadpur P.S. Case No.25/2012 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of charge sheet. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and then the trial commenced after having the case committed meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal. 4. Defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. However, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of appellant. 5. In order to substantiate its case prosecution had examined altogether four PWs out of whom PW.1 is Kalawati Devi, PW.2 is Shri Bhagwan Ram, PW.3 is Lal Babu Ram and PW.4 is Tara Nand Jha, the I.O. Side by side had also exhibited Ext.1-Fardbeyan, Ext.1/A-Formal FIR. As stated above, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of appellant. 6. Coming to the status of the witnesses, it is apparent that PW.2 and PW.3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. That means to say the case rest upon sole testimony of the PW.1 as well as PW.4, the Investigating Officer. 7. From perusal of the fardbeyan, it is evident that informant was not knowing the appellant since before nor there happens to be specific disclosure at her end that during course of query from a boy who was present over pitch road, who disclosed the identity of the boy to be son of Mochhu Yadav, has not been, disclosed properly in order to affix his identity. She had gone to the place of Mochhu Yadav where she had not found the appellant. On further query she came to know with regard to name of the culprit as the appellant. Till, her examination, she had not an opportunity to see the appellant in order to properly affix that he was the person who misbehaved with her and the name of appellant figured on inadmissible evidence. 8. On further query she came to know with regard to name of the culprit as the appellant. Till, her examination, she had not an opportunity to see the appellant in order to properly affix that he was the person who misbehaved with her and the name of appellant figured on inadmissible evidence. 8. The other aspect visualizing from the fardbeyan is that the informant had categorically stated that she was frequently going to PHC at Tarari on bare foot but, while she was being cross-examined, she had stated in para-3 of her cross-examination that she use to visit from her village to Tarari by bus but on the alleged date, she was going bare foot. Was it possible, as from para-4, the distance in between happens to be more than seven miles? 9. Whether the road or path way or a lane passes through near about Mahua tree is a circumstance that is to be taken into consideration. PW.1 had not disclosed that it happens to be a pathway. When PW.4, the Investigating Officer deposed, he also failed to disclose that during course of inspection of the P.O. he found pathway or lane or road. The Investigating Officer had not disclosed that the distance of pitch road from that very place and further, disclosed that Bihta Tarari pitch road lies south to the Mahua tree while PW.1 Kalawati at in his examination-in-chief alone had stated that the accused after jumping in canal ran away. Then in that event whether the boy who was over the pitch road could have seen the appellant fleeing and if not, then in that event, whatever been disclosed by that boy became irrelevant and in likewise manner the subsequent event. 10. It is not the rule that identification for the first time in dock should not be accepted but, the same should be with some sort of corroboration which, in the facts and circumstances of the case is lacking. 11. Now coming to the conduct of the victim/informant/PW.1, it is apparent that she had gone to the place of Mochhu Yadav where, she should have waited till proper identification of the culprit where he happens to be son of Mochhu Yadav. Furthermore, as she was victimized therefore, it was expected to have approached the Police Station first but, going to office and then during course of returning she visited the Police Station is another circumstance. Furthermore, as she was victimized therefore, it was expected to have approached the Police Station first but, going to office and then during course of returning she visited the Police Station is another circumstance. During cross-examination as is evident from para-7 she had stated that when she reached at the place of occurrence during course of returning she had seen large number of females who called her. She had disclosed the event to them. Those female members had shown the house of the Chowkidar as well as house of the Lala Yadav (appellant). She could not be able to identify those females. If that is the conduct of the informant then in that event, visualizing the name of appellant and further, claiming that she had gone to the place of appellant shrouds under mystery and the cumulative effect, did not justify the finding recorded by the learned lower court. Accordingly, judgment impugned is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Appellant is on bail, hence discharge from its liability.