JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 1994, whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, though charge has been framed under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Rigours Imprisonment for one year. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of the informant, Mangri Orain (P.W.2) recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector, Mr. S. N. Pandey, Gumla Police Station, Gumla, on 16.01.1993 at about 16.15 hrs. at village -Soso, wherein, the informant has stated, that on 13.01.1993, Mangri Orain (P.W.2) had gone to her paternal house at village-Bardih, P.S. Gumla, District -Gumla. On 16.01.1993, she was returning along with her son Dilip Oraon and daughters Soni Kumari and Sona Kumari. When she reached at Gathapahar, P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla at about 10.00 A.M., then accused Budhu Das met her and threw the bundle of clothes kept on her head and also threw the child, who was tied on her back and took her towards the forest. Accused Budhu Das threshed her on the ground and committed rape upon her. Informant cried but no one came as, it was a lonely place. Her son Dilip Oraon was weeping there. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police has registered First Information Report bearing Gumla, P.S. Case No. 15 of 1993, dated 16.01.1993, under Section 376/341 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Budhu Das. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 31 of 1993, dated 16.03.1993, under Section 341/376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Budhu Das. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 27.03.1993 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 11.07.1994. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant, on 30.11.1995, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant, on 30.11.1995, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether seven prosecution witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Krishna Singh has been examined as P.W.1, Mangri Orain (informant and victim of the case) has been examined as P.W.2, Budhram Oraon has been examined as P.W.3, Dilip Oraon (son of the informant) has been examined as P.W.4, Vijay Singh has been examined as P.W.5, Sahjanand Pandey (Investigating Officer of the case) has been examined as P.W.6 and Dr. Anuradha Kacchap (Medical Officer) has been examined as P.W.7. Fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, Signature of the officer in-charge on the formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as exhibit-2 and Injury report of the informant, Mangri Orain has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 13.11.2003, to which the appellant has denied about the occurrence and has claimed innocence. No defence witness has been examined nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the same, 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 counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 counsel for the appellant has submitted, that First Information Report has been instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, P.W.2, Mangri Orain, she has claimed that, while she was returning to her house from her paternal house (maike) on 16.01.1993 and reached near Ghathapahar at around 10.00A.M. along with her son Dilip Oraon, aged about 10 years and daughters, Sona Kumari aged about 4 years and Soni Kumari aged about 8 months, Budhu Das caught hold of her and committed sexual intercourse against her will, but while the informant was examined as P.W.2, she has stated, different version, contradictory to her fardbeyan. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that while deposing in the court as P.W.2, informant has stated that, near Ghathapahar forest at around 3-4 P.M. Further, in her examination-in-chief at page no.2, line-7, she has categorically stated that, accused Budhu Das was trying to thresh her on the ground for committing rape, but she did not fall on the ground and he was trying to commit rape upon her, as such, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that genesis of the prosecution story, as alleged by the informant, in the fardbeyan is contradictory to her own deposition in the court as P.W.2. Further, P.W.2 has stated that, the appellant Budhu Das is her maternal uncle. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that son of the informant, Dilip Oraon has been examined as P.W.4. This witness has stated, a contradictory version from his mother by alleging that accused/appellant, Budhu Das has committed rape upon her mother by dragging her in the way towards a jungle and left her after half an hour. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that informant has not supported the case of rape during her examination in the Court, though she has alleged rape in her fardbeyan. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of P.W.2, Mangri Orain and P.W.4, Dilip Oraon, son of the informant, Mangri Orain. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that informant has not supported the case of rape during her examination in the Court, though she has alleged rape in her fardbeyan. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of P.W.2, Mangri Orain and P.W.4, Dilip Oraon, son of the informant, Mangri Orain. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this court towards evidence of P.W.6, Sahjanand Pandey, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who has recorded fardbeyan of the informant and investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Dr. Anuradh Kacchap, P.W.7 has examined the victim and has not found any sign of rape nor any injury on the private part and injury report of the same has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that learned trial Court has also disbelieved the prosecution case as learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted the appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such benefit of doubt may be given to the appellant. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that informant has been examined as P.W.2 and has supported her version made out in the First Information Report, which is instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that sole eye witness to the occurrence i.e. son of the informant, Dilip Oraon, who has been examined as P.W.4, has also supported the prosecution case and the investigating officer after finding the case to be true has submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court at this stage. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey assisted by Mr. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, three exhibits of the prosecution side and statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the informant P.W.2, Mangri Orain and her fardbeyan and compared the same with the evidence of P.W.4, Dilip Oraon. This court has found contradiction in the evidence of the informant, as the informant Mangri Orain has alleged in the fardbeyan that on 16.01.1993 at 10.00 A.M., the occurrence has taken place in the mid way to her house, near Ghathapahar forest, but while examining as P.W.2 in the Court, the informant has stated that the occurrence took place at 3-4 P.M. This court has also carefully perused the fardbeyan of the informant and her deposition as P.W.2(Mangri Orain). In the fardbeyan the informant has categorically alleged about commission of rape, but while deposing in the learned trial Court as P.W.2., this witness has categorically stated during her examination-in-chief that appellant has tried to thrash her on the ground but failed to do so. This Court has further tested the evidence of P.W.4, son of the informant, who has further given contradictory version by stating that mother was dragged by appellant inside the forest and rape was committed against her for half an hour. This Court has taken judicial notice of the relation of appellant with the informant, which was admitted by the informant during her cross-examination as maternal uncle of the informant. The conduct of the informant is highly doubtful. Under the aforesaid background and under such sketchy evidence, this Court is of the opinion that conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is also not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such the benefit of doubt be given in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 1994, arising out of Gumla, P.S. Case no. 15 of 1993 corresponding to G. R. case no. 40 of 1993, is hereby set aside by giving benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed. 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.