JUDGMENT : This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2008 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Sessions Trial No. 533 of 2007/Tr. No. 38 of 2007 by which the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for 07 years and also pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo sentence of six months. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim was not medically examined. There is contradiction in the evidence of the complainant and other two witnesses. It is further submitted that there is also contradiction in the evidence of the complainant in the Court and the allegation made in the complaint petition. 3. Learned APP for the State submitted there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. 4. As per prosecution case the complainant was alone in the house on the date of occurrence at 6.30 pm and her husband had gone out of the house. The complainant was cutting vegetable in the Veramdah. The appellant, in the meantime, arrived and enquired about her husband. She told that he had gone outside. Thereafter, he called her after entering into the house. She went up to door and the appellant gave her note of Rs. one hundred and forcibly put her down on the ground in the room and committed rape with her after putting cloth in her mouth. She raised hulla then witnesses, namely, Hasina and Abdul Rahman arrived and saw the occurrence. 5. Abdul Rahman has been examined as PW-1. He is uncle of the complainant. He has stated in his evidence that he was at Hatia on the date of occurrence between 6 to 6.30 PM. He rushed on hulla and saw the appellant committed rape with the complainant. The appellant fled away on the arrival of the witness. 6. PW-2 is husband of the complainant. This witness is a hearsay witness. He has stated in his evidence that he was in Punjab on the date of occurrence. His wife informed him on telephone about the occurrence. 7. The victim lady Nasima Khatoon has been examined as PW-3. The appellant fled away on the arrival of the witness. 6. PW-2 is husband of the complainant. This witness is a hearsay witness. He has stated in his evidence that he was in Punjab on the date of occurrence. His wife informed him on telephone about the occurrence. 7. The victim lady Nasima Khatoon has been examined as PW-3. She has stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence at 6 pm she was cutting vegetable in the house. She was alone and at that time, the appellant entered into her house and committed rape with her. She raised hulla then witness Abdul Rahman and other arrived and accused fled away. 8. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had gone to file the case with her husband but she does not remember the date and time on which she had gone to file the case. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that she has not produced any cloth with stain mark. She had consulted the doctor but no medical report was given. She has further stated in her cross-examination that police has come to the doctor and she has shown the cloths to the police. The doctor told her that rape had been committed with her. 9. The defence has examined three witnesses, namely Shah Ishaque, Safina Khatoon, mother-in-law of the accused and Sayeeda Khatoon wife of the accused and they have stated in their evidence that they are beggars. Earlier Sayeeda Khatoon was married with one Nariya @ Mokim who deserted her and she was again married with Shah Jamal and due to this enmity Nariya used to get file several cases against this accused, his wife and others. 10. This Court after looking into the evidence of the witnesses as mentioned in detail including the evidence of the complainant finds contradiction in the evidence of the complainant herself. In the complaint petition, complainant has stated that appellant entered into her house while she was alone and cutting vegetable, offered her Rs. 100/- and thereafter putting her down on the ground in the room committed rape with her whereas in her cross-examination she has stated that on the date of occurrence this appellant came to her house and committed rape with her. She raised hulla then Abdul Rahman came. 100/- and thereafter putting her down on the ground in the room committed rape with her whereas in her cross-examination she has stated that on the date of occurrence this appellant came to her house and committed rape with her. She raised hulla then Abdul Rahman came. Abdul Rahman (PW1) has given evidence as an eye witness stating that he saw the occurrence whereas as per the complainant she was alone in the house. In para 3 of the cross-examination PW-1 has stated that he was in the bazaar and on hulla he came to the house of the complainant. The complainant and her brother were raising hulla in the Angan. In the examination-in-chief this witness has stated that he had seen the occurrence with his own eye. PW-2 the husband of the complainant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He was in Punjab on the date of occurrence. He got information about the occurrence by his wife on telephone. The victim PW-3 has stated in her evidence that there was no medical report of her medical examination. She has stated in her cross-examination that she did not give stained cloth to the police. Those cloths are still in the house. She has further stated in her evidence that police had come to the doctor whereas the instant case is a complaint case. There is no mention in the complaint petition that complainant had met with the police at the time of medical examination. Therefore, on the basis of such apparent contradiction in the evidence of witnesses, this Court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge against the appellant beyond all reasoanble doubt. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is not in accordance with law. 11. Therefore, the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2008 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Sessions Trial No. 533 of 2007/Tr. No. 38 of 2007 is set aside. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. Appeal allowed.