JUDGMENT : Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Niki Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.03.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 435 of 1995, arising out of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 91 of 1994 by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the opposite party no. 2 was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been consistent evidence on record including that of the informant as well as her husband with respect to the rape committed upon the petitioner on three occasions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the Doctor who was examined as P.W.3 has also found certain injuries on her person of three linear abrasions on her breast which substantiates the allegation of rape upon the petitioner. It has been submitted that the learned court below had not properly appreciated the materials available on record and perhaps have been swayed by the written complaint made to the authority by the people of the locality which was also marked as exhibits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the evidence of the prosecution inspire confidence and in such circumstance the evidence of a solitary witness would have been sufficient for convicting the opposite party no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted against the opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner in which it was stated that at about 10 to 11 months prior to the institution of First Information Report the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be the nephew of the landlord of the petitioner had entered into her bathroom and has committed rape upon her. It is alleged that out of fear the petitioner as well as her husband did not report the matter to the Police. Subsequently on 21.05.1994 in absence of the husband of the petitioner the opposite party no. 2 had once again attempted to commit rape upon the petitioner however on account of the alarm raised by her she was saved. It is alleged that out of fear the petitioner as well as her husband did not report the matter to the Police. Subsequently on 21.05.1994 in absence of the husband of the petitioner the opposite party no. 2 had once again attempted to commit rape upon the petitioner however on account of the alarm raised by her she was saved. It is alleged that subsequently thereafter on 25.05.1994 the opposite party no.2 had once again entered into her house and forcibly committed rape upon the petitioner. Allegation has also been levelled that her husband on coming to know of the occurrence had demanded an explanation from the accused but he was assaulted and threatened which ultimately led the petitioner to institute the First Information Report on 28.05.1994. Investigation resulted in culmination of charge sheet under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions wherein charge was framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.6 and P.W.7 Manjeet Singh and Sunil Kumar Agarwal have been tendered by the prosecution. Gurmeet Kaur (P.W.5) could not support the prosecution case but she was not declared hostile by the prosecution. The star witness of the trial is P.W.1 who is the prosecutrix as well as her husband P.W.2. P.W.1 has narrated about the occurrence which is alleged to have taken place and so has P.W.2 Swapan Kumar Mandal who is the husband of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the Doctor who has found certain injuries on the person of the petitioner. P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation and after finding the case to be true had submitted charge-sheet. The first occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 10 to 11 months prior to the date of institution of the case i.e. 28.05.1994. No explanation has been given by the prosecutrix with respect to the delay in institution of the First Information Report. The learned court below has considered another aspect of the matter which further belies the prosecution case, in as much as even after the alleged incident a new tenancy agreement was entered into by the husband of the petitioner and the uncle of the opposite party no. 2. The learned court below has considered another aspect of the matter which further belies the prosecution case, in as much as even after the alleged incident a new tenancy agreement was entered into by the husband of the petitioner and the uncle of the opposite party no. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was a tenant under the uncle of the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 used to collect rent. It further appears that an application was made by the local people to the Superintendent of Police with respect to falsity of the case and which was marked as Exhibit-E. The evidence of the Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W.4 also falsifies the clam of the petitioner that the bolt in the bathroom was broken wherein it was found that there was no bolt in door of the bathroom and the same was merely closed by keeping wooden plank. The entire allegation as has been levelled by the petitioner thus seems to be on account of some dispute relating to the tenancy agreement between the uncle of the opposite party no. 2 and the husband of the petitioner. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 seems to be concocted and does not at all inspire confidence. There is vital contradiction moreover from the evidence of the Doctor who has been examined as P.W.3 which also suggest that the injury of abrasion was found aged about 24 hours whereas the last incident is alleged to have taken place was about 3 days prior to the lodging of the First Information Report. The entire facet of the prosecution case revolves around the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 which considering the surrounding circumstances does suggest that attempt has been made by the petitioner to falsely implicate the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner had failed to prove her allegation with respect to the opposite party no. 2 committing rape upon her. 5. In such circumstances, therefore, the judgment dated 13.03.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 435 of 1995 by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur does not suffer from any illegality and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.