JUDGMENT : Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Alpana Verma, for the appellant and Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2004 and order of sentence dated 19.02.2004, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1997, whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused person shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of informant Rajkumari Devi (P.W.2) before the Sub-Inspector, Bhawnathpur Police Station, on 25.09.1995, at around 8.30 A.M., wherein the informant has alleged, that on 24.09.1995(Sunday)she had gone to graze ox in Gorgaon jungle, where accused-Ram Chandra Argaria had also gone to graze his ox. After sometime, accused/appellant Ram Chandra Argaria came near the informant and both became busy in garaging their ox. She has further stated that, Ram Chandra Argaria (appellant) caught her at around 4.00 P.M. and took her to a lonely place and thrashed her on the ground, gagged her mouth and pulled up her sari and ravished her. After that accused/appellant Ram Chandra Argaria threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, else she would be raped again. Thereafter, she returned to her house, and disclosed the matter to her parents in the night. It is further alleged by the informant that she was feeling pain in her private part, as such, her mother after washing her private part gave hot contact to it as first aid. It is further alleged that the father of the victim and the other co-villagers searched the accused in jungle, in the night, but the accused had fled away. Thereafter, on the next day the informant along with her parent came to the police station and she has given her statement. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Police registered First Information Report, bearing Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 1995, dated 25.09.1995, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 43 of 1995, dated 31.10.1995, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/ appellant. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Police registered First Information Report, bearing Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 1995, dated 25.09.1995, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 43 of 1995, dated 31.10.1995, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/ appellant. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 13.12.1995 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 05.03.1997. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant on 01.07.2002, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the sole appellant/accused has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether five witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Ramu Argaria (father of victim) has been examined as P.W.1, Rajkumari Devi (victim) has been examined as P.W.2, Batasia Devi (mother of the victim) has been examined as P.W.3, Dr. A.K. Jha, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.4, and he has proved the medical report, written and signed by Dr. S. Lala as Exhibit.1 and Ramdhyan Pal (formal witness) has been examined as P.W.5. The signature of the Dr. S Lala on the injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, Formal First Informant Report has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, requisition for medical examination issued by the officer in-charge of Bhawanathpur police station has been proved and marked as exhibit-3 and signature of the constable no.3 Gupteshwar Rai on the back side of the injury report has been proved and marked as exhibit-4. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 16.12.2003, where he has denied about the occurrence. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at, and dissatisfied with the, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Alpana Verma on behalf of the appellant. Being aggrieved at, and dissatisfied with the, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Alpana Verma on behalf of the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that the medical report, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, the doctor has categorically opined that, no definite opinion, regarding occurrence of rape can be given. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that even the doctor has not found any mark of the injury on the internal and external part of the body. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that the Dr. S. Lala has not been examined in this case, though injury report has been proved by Dr. A.K Jha (P.W.4). Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that P.W.1, Ramu Argaria, who is the father of the victim is a hearsay witness, who has categorically stated that co-villagers have informed him about the incidence but his daughter has not disclosed anything to him. This witnesses has admitted, during his cross examination, that they are in litigating term. Rajkumari Devi (victim of the case) has been examined as P.W.2. She has stated during examination-in-chief that her mouth was closed by gamcha (cloth) and ravished by the appellant and the accused has also been seen by her, mother while fleeing away. This witness has further stated, that after verifying her statement made as the fardbeyan, she put her Right hand thumb impression on the same. But during cross-examination, she has categorically stated, that rape has been committed at 12:00 noon, as stated, in paras 9, 10 and 11 of her cross-examination and the victim has categorically stated in paragraph-12 of her cross-examination that the rape was not committed at 4:00 P.M. Victim has further stated, that at the place of occurrence while rape was committed and bangles were also broken in which, she has sustained bleeding injury on her hand. Victim has further stated, that she has also sustained injury on her buttock and the clothes got stained by blood. Victim has further stated, that she has also sustained injury on her buttock and the clothes got stained by blood. She has further stated, that she has disclosed the occurrence to her parent i.e. mother and father, but she has also admitted, that her mother has told that they will give a lesson to the appellant. This witness has further stated that, she has not disclosed this occurrence to any one except her parent. She has further stated that all the injuries were shown to the doctor, who has treated her and the blood stained cloth was handed over to the police. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that informant (victim) is the sole witness of this case, but her statement made in the fardbeyan and her evidence recorded as P. W.2, are contradictory to each other, as she has developed her case by saying that her mouth was closed by means of a gamcha. She has further stated that, she has not disclosed the occurrence to her father. This witness has also stated that she has sustained bleeding injury in her private part, the bangles have been broken down and after seeing the blood, the accused fled away. All these facts are contradictory from the First Informant Report, coupled with the fact that the time of alleged occurrence, as mentioned in the First Informant Report which is based on the fardbeyan of the informant, is 4.00 P.M., whereas this witness has categorically stated during her cross-examination that occurrence took place at 12.00 noon and categorically denied that the alleged occurrence committed at 4.00 P.M. Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that the credential of the victim P.W.2 (Rajkumari Devi) is not worth reliable, as such, this court cannot convict the appellant on the basis of testimony of P.W.2 only without any corroboration. Learned Amicus Curiae relied upon a Judgment in the case of Radhu V. State of M.P. reported in 2007 CRI. L. J. 4704 Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, Medical evidence did not corroborate case of sexual intercourse or rape-Evidence of prosecutrix did not inspire confidence-Accused is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted. Learned Amicus Curiae has also referred the evidence of P.W.3 Batasia Devi who is the mother of the victim. L. J. 4704 Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, Medical evidence did not corroborate case of sexual intercourse or rape-Evidence of prosecutrix did not inspire confidence-Accused is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted. Learned Amicus Curiae has also referred the evidence of P.W.3 Batasia Devi who is the mother of the victim. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted, that P.W.3 has categorically stated that there is dispute between her and mother of the appellant since childhood. She has further stated that, victim has not disclosed anything about the occurrence on the way, rather she has disclosed about the occurrence after reaching the house in presence of her husband. They have seen blood oozing from the person of the victim, which has also been witnessed by the officer in-charge. She has further stated that, she has not discussed the incidence to her husband also and as such, the evidence of P.W.3 is also not reliable. As per the fardbeyan victim has narrated the incident to her mother and father, who, along with the co-villagers, have made search of the appellant for the whole night, whereas this witness (P.W.3) has categorically stated that, she has not discussed the occurrence to anybody including her husband. Besides, this witness has categorically stated in paragraph-4 that prior to the occurrence, she want to send this appellant to jail because of prevailing animosity. Under such background learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that evidence of P.W.3 is also not reliable to convict the appellant. Dr. A.K. Jha (Medical Officer) (P.W.4) has proved the handwriting and signature of Dr. S. Lala, who has issued injury report, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1. This witness has admitted during cross-examination that the injury report was not written in front of him. Ramdhyal Pal, a formal witness has been examined as P.W.5, who has proved the formal First informant Report written and signed by the then officer in-charge as exhibit-2. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that in the present case, neither the medical officer, who has examined the victim nor the investigating officer, who has investigated the case have been examined in this case and the materials which have been brought on record are contradictory to each other. Apart from this, evidence of P.W.1 (Ramu Argaria), P.W.2 victim, (Rajkumari Devi) and P.W.3 (Batasia Devi) are contradictory to each other. Apart from this, evidence of P.W.1 (Ramu Argaria), P.W.2 victim, (Rajkumari Devi) and P.W.3 (Batasia Devi) are contradictory to each other. Even the evidence of P.W.2 (Rajkumari Devi) is in contradiction to her fardbeyan which has also not been proved in this case rather the formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as exhibit-1. Under the aforesaid background and in view of the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Radhu V. State of M. P. (Supra) the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued this case and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as the victim is a minor girl aged about 12-14 years and she has been raped by this appellant and there is no reason that the informant has falsely implicated the appellant in this case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that though the investigating officer has not been examined in this case but a competent witness i.e. Dr. A.K. Jha (P.W.4) has proved the injury report issued by Dr. S. Lala, who has examined the victim and as such, impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based upon the material available on record. 13. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Alpana Verma on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e. First Informant Report, framing of the charge, evidence of five prosecution witnesses, four exhibits of the prosecution side and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and compared the same with fardbeyan as well as the medical evidence. From perusal of the medical evidence, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, doctor has categorically stated that, no definite opinion with regard to rape can be given. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and compared the same with fardbeyan as well as the medical evidence. From perusal of the medical evidence, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, doctor has categorically stated that, no definite opinion with regard to rape can be given. Furthermore, the doctor has not found any external or internal injury on any part of the victim, which is not, in consonance with the allegation made by the prosecutrix. The evidence of P.W.1 (Ramu Argaria) who is father of the victim has been scrutinized and compared with the testimony of the P.W.2 and her fardbeyan recorded by the police. This witness (P.W.1) has categorically stated that, his daughter has not disclosed about the occurrence to him rather he got the information from the co-villagers. The victim and daughter of this witness who has been examined as P.W.2 has categorically stated that, she has disclosed about the occurrence to her mother and father, but she has not disclosed the occurrence to any of the co-villagers. She has further stated that, her father has disclosed the occurrence to the co-villagers and further stated that her father along with the co-villagers went in search of the appellant for the whole night in the Jungle, but the appellant has fled away. There are vital contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are father and victim in this case. This Court has also scrutinized the evidence of P.W.3 Batasia Devi, who is the mother of the victim and compared the same with the fardbeyan of the victim, evidence of P.W.1 Ramu Argaria and victim Rajkumari Devi (P.W.2). This Court is of the opinion that, the mother has given a contradictory statement from her daughter. She has admitted that she wanted that appellant be sent to jail even prior to the occurrence and as such, it appears that this case has been lodged because of animosity prevailing between the parties, especially mother of the victim and mother of the appellant, which prolonged between the family. She has admitted that she wanted that appellant be sent to jail even prior to the occurrence and as such, it appears that this case has been lodged because of animosity prevailing between the parties, especially mother of the victim and mother of the appellant, which prolonged between the family. This Court has also perused the First Informant Report which is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant, though the fardbeyan has not been proved nor marked as exhibit in this case but from perusal of the fardbeyan of the informant and the statement of the victim recorded as P.W.2, there is vital contradiction with regard to manner of occurrence as well as time of occurrence. As per the fardbeyan, the informant has claimed that, she has been raped by the appellant by gagging her mouth in a lonely place at 4.00 P.M on 24.09.1995 but while the victim was deposing in the Court as P.W.2, she has categorically stated that, she has been raped by gagging her mouth with the help of the gamcha (cloth) at 12.00 noon. She has categorically denied that she has not been raped at 4.00P.M. during her cross-examination. Under the aforesaid background, as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order sentence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, can not sustain in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2004 and order of sentence dated 19.02.2004, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1997 [arising out of Bhawanathpur P.S. Case no. 54 of 1995 corresponding to G.R. no. 564 of 1995] is hereby set aside. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed giving benefit of doubt. 15. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once. 17. Before parting with the judgment this Court appreciates the assistance given by Mrs. Alpana Verma, Amicus Curiae in disposal of this Criminal Appeal. The Secretary, Jharkhand Legal Services Authority, Ranchi is directed to pay the legal remuneration to learned Amicus Curiae within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.