JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard Mrs. Priya Shreshta, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 07.01.2004, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No.119 of 2003, whereby the sole appellant, Dhaniram Sardar has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, written report, submitted by the informant, Kumari Lata Rani Sardar (P.W.5) before the Officer-in-Charge, Potka Police Station, alleging therein that recently she has appeared in the Matriculation Examination. It has been alleged that on 26.08.2002 at around 8 a.m., Dhaniram Sardar (appellant) came to her house, informed her about a job in College on monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. It is further alleged that the informant being an educated unemployed girl was asked by the appellant to come to his house along with her certificate. The informant went there and thereafter the accused asked her that she has to obey his order and closed the door and caught-hold the informant in his arms with an intention to commit rape by thrashing her on the cot. It is further alleged that the accused was trying to remove skirt and shirt by gauging her mouth with an intention to commit rape by climbing over the informant. The informant''s clothes got torn. In the meantime, the informant raised brawl, on which Paresh Sardar (P.W.1), Jai Pal Sardar (P.W.2) and Ram Jai Sardar (P.W.4) came there and thus, she was saved from rape by the appellant. The informant has further alleged that Dhaniram Sardar (appellant) took out vermilion and put on her head and said that she is his wife. The informant has further alleged that Dhaniram Sardar (appellant) has earlier married twice and has nine children. The informant has claimed that the age of the appellant is similar to the age of her father. The informant has further stated that because of the distance and rainy season, she could not come to the Police Station on Monday. 4. The informant has further alleged that Dhaniram Sardar (appellant) has earlier married twice and has nine children. The informant has claimed that the age of the appellant is similar to the age of her father. The informant has further stated that because of the distance and rainy season, she could not come to the Police Station on Monday. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report bearing Potka P.S. Case No. 61 of 2002, dated 28.08.2002, corresponding to G.R. No.1716 of 2002 under Sections 376 /511 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused/appellant. 5. After investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet vide Chargesheet No.78 of 2002 dated 31.12.2002 under Section 376 I.P.C. against the sole accused/appellant, Dhaniram Sardar. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken against accused/appellant vide order dated 31.01.2003 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 27.02.2003. 7. The charge has been framed by the learned trial court on 21.06.2003 against the sole accused/appellant under Section 376 I.P.C., to which the accused/ appellant pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution has examined altogether nine prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents in order to prove its case. Paresh Sardar, brother of the informant and brother-in-law of the appellant has been examined as P.W.1, Jaipal Sardar, uncle of the informant has been examined as P.W.2, Premchand Sardar @ Rengta Sardar, a covillager has been examined as P.W.3, Ramjai Sardar, another uncle of the informant has been examined as P.W.4. All these four witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and thus, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Out of these four witnesses, Paresh Sardar (P.W.1), Jaipal Sardar (P.W.2) and Ramjai Sardar (P.W.4) are named in the First Information Report as the persons, who saved the informant from commission of rape by the appellant against her will. Kumari Lata Rani Sardar, informant and victim of the case has been examined as P.W.5, Santi Muni Sardar, a hearsay witness has been examined as P.W.6, Barnwash Kujur, Investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.7, Raghunath Sardar, a seizure witness has been examined as P.W.8 and Dr. Binod Kumar Chowdhari, Medical officer, has been examined as P.W.9, who has examined the victim. Binod Kumar Chowdhari, Medical officer, has been examined as P.W.9, who has examined the victim. Signature of informant on the written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, signature of Raghunath Sardar (P.W.8) on the seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/1 and injury report of the victim has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused /appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 02.12.2003, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and has denied that the victim has ever come to his house. The defence has also examined two defence witnesses. Anant Sardar has been examined as D.W.1 and Vijay Sardar has been examined as D.W.2. 10. The learned trial court, after hearing learned counsels for both the sides and on the basis of the material brought on record, 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 accused/appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Hon''ble Court, assailing the same. 11. Heard Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Amicus Curiae. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court without scrutinizing the material available on record and as such, judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that Paresh Sardar (P.W.1), brother of the informant, Jaipal Sardar (P.W.2), uncle of the informant and Ram Jai Sardar (P.W.4), another uncle of the informant, all the three persons are named in the First Information Report, as the persons who have saved the informant from commission of rape by the appellant against her will, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus, they were declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that Prem Chand Sardar @ Rengta Sardar (P.W.3) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and thus, he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that Prem Chand Sardar @ Rengta Sardar (P.W.3) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and thus, he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that from perusal of the First Information Report as well as the deposition of the victim (P.W.5), it appears that there is vital contradiction in the evidence and her written report, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that in the First Information Report, the informant has alleged that the appellant was trying to commit rape with her and when she raised brawl, the witnesses came and saved her, thereafter the appellant put vermilion on her head, but while deposing in the Court as P.W.5, the informant has exaggerated and developed her case by not only alleging about the commission of rape against her will by the appellant but also has alleged that earlier also this appellant has committed rape against her will. Learned Amicus Curiae has thus, submitted that from perusal of the evidence of P.W.5, it appears that the same is not reliable for convicting the appellant, as her credential is under cloud of suspicion. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the informant, who has proved the written report as Exhibit-1, has developed her case during deposition. The Investigating officer has also found discrepancies in the statement of the informant, such as, the door was not found broken, as alleged by the informant. The house was comprising of two rooms, but the informant has alleged that the house is comprising of three rooms in which the appellant along with his married wife, nine children and parents were residing. The Investigating officer has found two rooms house, in which the second room, which was bed room, was without having any door. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the Investigating officer has not found any cot inside the room, as alleged by the informant in her fardbeyan, on which she was thrashed by the appellant to commit rape. Learned Amicus Curiae has drawn attention of this Court towards evidence of P.W.5 at Para-17 and written application of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1 where she has only alleged about attempt to commit rape. Learned Amicus Curiae has drawn attention of this Court towards evidence of P.W.5 at Para-17 and written application of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1 where she has only alleged about attempt to commit rape. This witness in Para-22 of her cross-examination has further stated that she has filed compromise petition in the court below. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that such contradictory statement of the informant cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant in such a heinous crime under Section 376 I.P.C., as the credential of the informant is itself doubtful. Learned Amicus Curiae, in support of her submission, has put reliance upon a case, as reported in in the case of Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2012) 7 SCC 171 , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt on the ground that the statement of the victim suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and deliberate improvements on material point. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that Santi Muni Sardar, who has been examined as P.W.6 is a hearsay witness, as this witness has stated that whatever she has stated before the Court, was on the basis of the disclosure made by the victim (P.W.5) who has alleged that Dhani Ram Sardar (appellant) has put vermilion on her head and nothing was stated more than this. Baranwash Kujur, Investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W.7, who has proved the seizure list and the same has been marked as Exhibit-2 and has explained the place of occurrence as a tiled house comprising of two rooms. This witness has categorically stated in Para-8 of his cross-examination that in the entire house there is only one door, but he has not found sign of any damage on the door. Raghunath Sardar, a seizure witness has been examined as P.W.8 and he has proved his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-2/1. Dr. Binod Kumar Choudhary, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W.9 and he has examined the victim on 3.09.2002 and has proved the injury report and the same has been marked as Exhibit-3. Doctor (P.W.9) has categorically stated that hymen found torn looking fresh, but he has not found any injury on her private or external part of the victim. Doctor has categorically stated that hymen can be torn due to various reasons. Doctor (P.W.9) has categorically stated that hymen found torn looking fresh, but he has not found any injury on her private or external part of the victim. Doctor has categorically stated that hymen can be torn due to various reasons. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the injury report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3 also shows that the Doctor has not found any live or dead spermatozoa in the vaginal swab nor in the cloth provided by the prosecution. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that such injury report cannot be relied upon in view of the statement of the victim recorded in Para-10 of her crossexamination where she has stated that earlier she was also raped while she was taken by the appellant to Ranchi, for taking Mathematics examination, as such, if the rape was committed on that day then the finding of the Doctor regarding hymen torn looking fresh is not believable and acceptable and as such, without having any material on record, the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned trial court and thus, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 12. Heard, Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has submitted that the same has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial. Learned State counsel has submitted that the informant has supported her case and the Investigating officer (P.W.7) and the Doctor (P.W.9) have found case to be true and on such material facts, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 13. Heard, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the entire records i. e. First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, three prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and two defence witnesses as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. This Court has scrutinized the evidence. 14. This Court has scrutinized the evidence. It appears that the named witnesses, in the First Information Report, namely Paresh Sardar (P.W.1), Jaipal Sardar (P.W.2) and Ramjai Sardar (P.W.4) who are brother and uncles of the informant, have been examined in the Court and they have not supported the prosecution case and thus, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution along with Prem Chand Sardar (P.W.3). Santi Muni Sardar (P.W.6) is a hearsay witness and she got information on the basis of the disclosure made by the victim (P.W.5) and as per the disclosure, it is only stated that Dhaniram Sardar (appellant) has put vermilion on the head of the informant. Raghunath Sardar (P.W.8) is a seizure witness, as such, the entire case is based upon the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.9. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the informant (P.W.5) and it appears that there is vital contradiction in the evidence of P.W.5 and her written report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. In the written application, the informant has alleged of attempting to commit rape against the appellant, but in her deposition as P.W.5, the informant (victim) has tried to develop her case by improving the prosecution case causing serious infirmities, inconsistencies and deliberate improvement in the prosecution case. The Informant has claimed that the house in which the appellant was residing is comprising of three rooms in which the informant was called upon with her certificates and when the informant entered into the room, the door was closed. The informant has also alleged that after raising brawl, the witnesses, namely, Paresh Sardar (P.W.1), Jaipal Sardar (P.W.2) and Ramjai Sardar (P.W.4) came and have broken the door and in the said room there was cot in which the appellant was trying to thrash the informant for committing rape, but the Investigating officer (P.W.7) has categorically stated that the house is comprising of two rooms in which only one door was there and there was no mark of damage in the door. The Investigating officer has not found any cot inside the room rather as per the evidence of P.W.5 (informant), the appellant was residing along with his wife and nine children as well as his parents also and as such, there are vital contradictions in the prosecution case which compels this Court to disbelieve the evidence of the informant who has tried to improve her case by bringing serious infirmities, inconsistencies and improvement in the material facts in the background that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 have not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Dr. Binod Kumar Chowdhary, Medical officer (P.W.9) has proved the injury report as Exhibit-3, has also categorically stated that on the basis of the pathological test, it is difficult to say that whether the victim has been raped or not, but he has not found any injury either in her private part or external part nor has found any spermatozoa alive in the vaginal swab. 15. Under the aforesaid circumstances and considering the judgment cited by the learned Amicus Curiae and the material as discussed above, this Court extends benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant by acquitting him of the charge and conviction under Section 376 I.P.C. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 07.01.2004, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No.119 of 2003, is hereby set aside. 16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed. 17. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 18. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once. 19. Before parting with the judgment, this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mrs. Priya Shreshth, learned Amicus Curiae. The Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi, is directed to release the legal remuneration to Mrs. Priya Shreshth, learned Amicus Curiae within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 20. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Member Secretary, JHALSA forthwith for needful.