JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J. - Charge against the appellant was of having raped the prosecutrix in the intervening night of 11-12/03/1991. 2. Vide impugned decision dated 04/05/1992 the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine in sum of 100/-. In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. Criminal law was set into motion when the prosecutrix came to Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur on 14/03/1991 at 10.00 a.m. resulting in FIR (Ex.D.5) being registered on her statement in which she informed that her husband was a driver and three days earlier had gone to Ahmedabad. Three days back, when after washing utensils she was about to enter her room in kachchi basti which was her matrimonial house and was owned by Babu Khan, the appellant, brother of Babu Khan who was residing there; caught her and raped her. She yelled but nobody rescued her. She was scared in the night and kept quite. In the morning she informed a 'jatni' who was living nearby. She told her to wait for her husband to return. In the statement she said that the police party had brought her at the police station and she had narrated the whole incident to the police party. 4. The prosecutrix statement Ex.D.3 was recorded u/S.164 Cr.P.C. on 15/03/1991. Relevant would it be to highlight that said statement mirrors her statement based whereon the FIR was registered. 5. The prosecutrix was medically examined, and surprisingly only to carry out a bony age test. Report Ex.P.12 dated 14/03/1991 proved by Dr.Heeralal Bairwa PW-11 records her age to be eighteen years. 6. It is unfortunate that no medico legal report concerning medical examination of the prosecutrix was filed with the charge- sheet and hence a valuable evidence which either be inculpatory or exculpatory of the accused is missing. But, relevant would it be to note that on being cross examined, Dr.Heeralal Bairwa PW-11 said that when he examined the prosecutrix he did not notice any injury on her person. 7. There are no eye-witnesses. Unfortunately, the 'jatni' to whom the prosecutrix as claimed by her of having informed of the rape committed upon her has not been identified by the investigating officer and no such lady has been examined as a witness. 8. 7. There are no eye-witnesses. Unfortunately, the 'jatni' to whom the prosecutrix as claimed by her of having informed of the rape committed upon her has not been identified by the investigating officer and no such lady has been examined as a witness. 8. Thus, it all turns upon the testimony of the prosecutrix. 9. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-8 in which she deposed facts which she had stated in her statement pursuant whereto the FIR was lodged, but with an addition that before being raped she was assaulted. She also introduced a version that there was a chowkidar residing nearby who lodged the report with the police and, therefore, pursuant thereto in the morning the police came. She said that she gave information to the police on the next day after the incident. In cross-examination she said that when she was beaten and assaulted she suffered an injury. She stated that she was instructed by the police as to on what lines she should make the statement before the Magistrate. 10. The husband of the prosecutrix Ghevar Chand has appeared as PW-7 and said that it was he who lodged the report with the police. 11. Now, at the fore-front what strikes is that deposing in court the prosecutrix said that she was beaten before she was raped and as a result thereof, she had suffered an injury. This is belied by the testimony of PW-11. Further, in her statement which resulted in registration of the FIR and her statement u/S.164 Cr.P.C., she did not state so. Deposing in the court she said that she reported the incident the same night to a chowkidar who lodged a report with the police and, therefore, next day the police came to her matrimonial house. No such chowkidar has been produced. Further, as noted hereinabove, FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident. The SHO, Ashu PW-9 claims that the prosecutrix was brought to the police station by some personnel, but regretfully no statement of the police officers has been recorded and the said fact does not find a mention in the FIR (Ex.D.5). 12. The prosecutrix claims that when she was raped she shrieked but no witness has been examined to prove said fact. As noted hereinabove, the 'jatni' to whom the prosecutrix informed the next morning of being raped has not been identified. 12. The prosecutrix claims that when she was raped she shrieked but no witness has been examined to prove said fact. As noted hereinabove, the 'jatni' to whom the prosecutrix informed the next morning of being raped has not been identified. There is an inherent contradiction in this regard. On the one hand, the prosecutrix claims to have told a chowkidar who resided nearby in the same night but on the other hand she claims that she was scared and it was next day morning only that she informed a 'jatni' of being raped. 13. In my opinion it would therefore be unsafe to convict the appellant in view of the shaky evidence. 14. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The sentence imposed upon the appellant is quashed. The appellant is on bail and thus the bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.