JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7th March, 2003 and order of sentence dated 10th March, 2003 passed by, Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-VI, C.B.I (A.H.D.), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.373 of 1986. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that victim Radha Kumari daughter of Prasad Singh alias Patur Singh gave her statement which was recorded by Officer-in-Charge, Lapung Police Station on 21st April, 1986 that about six months ago in the month of Ashwin the informant was cutting paddy in her field situated at Budha Bagicha. After cutting paddy at noon, she took bath in a river and was standing near Karanj tree and getting her cloths dry. Then suddenly Kuldeep Singh caught hold her from behind and thrown her on the ground. She tried to raise alarm but he put her cloths in the mouth and thereafter committed rape upon her. Thereafter, she thought of committing suicide by drowning in the river and while she was going towards the river then accused stopped her and offered that he will marry her and will take all the responsibility. After this incident, he continued committing rape upon her then she along with her parents complaint before the parents of the accused. Their parents assured her that the marriage would be solemnized between their son Kuldeep with the victim and advised not to raise this issue before others. The assurance of the parents of accused was accepted by the parents of victim and thereafter accused used to visit her residence as a result of which she became pregnant. The information about the pregnancy was also given to the mother of victim then she replied that the child would be her grandson so there is no question of any fearfulness and promised that the marriage would be solemnized in the next Lagan. The further allegation is that in the month of March when they approached them for marriage then he told that since the father of accused has been transferred from Chandwa to Latehar so the marriage would be solemnized in the month of Ramnawmi. Again during Ramnawmi parents of victim approached parents of convict and requested for the marriage then they refused to marry with convict. She claimed that she became pregnant due to Kuldeep Singh and his parents have cheated them and she has been made victim of rape and of cheating. Again during Ramnawmi parents of victim approached parents of convict and requested for the marriage then they refused to marry with convict. She claimed that she became pregnant due to Kuldeep Singh and his parents have cheated them and she has been made victim of rape and of cheating. This statement was read over to her and she put her L.T.I. in presence of two witnesses. 3. A formal F.I.R. being Lapung (Sadar) P.S. Case No.12 of 1986 was drawn corresponding to G.R. No.986 of 1986. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and after commitment of case, charge under Sections 376 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code was framed upon him. He denied the charges levelled upon him and claimed to be tried in the case. 4. The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1, the victim and informant of this case stated before the Court that the occurrence is of about four years back. She, after taking bath in the river, was standing near Karanj tree and was waiting for her cloths to be dried then suddenly appellant confined her and thrown her on the ground. He committed rape upon her. After that occurrence, she thought of committing suicide but she was stopped by the appellant and offered for marriage. She returned to home and informed her mother and thereafter her mother conveyed this news to her father. Both approached the parents of appellant where they agreed for the marriage between victim and the appellant. She further narrated that the appellant continued to commit rape upon her and when she became pregnant, her parents refused the marriage proposal with Kuldeep. He was demanding five thousand rupees as dowry and since they were not having such amount, Kuldeep was married to some other place. She also stated that forcibly he has committed rape and cheated her on the pretext of marriage. During cross-examination, she denied about the suggestion that she has become pregnant through the person who is visiting her place for drinking wine and wrong to say that Kuldeep has never committed rape. She further stated in her cross-examination that all the members of her family works at home and she was never alone in the home. She also stated that house of Kuldeep is next to her house. She also stated that they have not disclosed the offence to other persons. She further stated in her cross-examination that all the members of her family works at home and she was never alone in the home. She also stated that house of Kuldeep is next to her house. She also stated that they have not disclosed the offence to other persons. After the first occurrence, he visited the residence after 2-4 days. Since they have agreed for the marriage therefore, she had not stopped him from visiting. She also stated that a Panchayti was held in the village but she does not remember the name of Panches as it was arranged by her father. During cross-examination, she stated that on the day of occurrence she was cutting paddy and she had completed cutting of paddy of one plot and she was going on the next plot where five other persons of her village Manu Bahuria, Laikhu Bahuria, Shakuntala and Sukhni were cutting the paddy. Thereafter, she went for taking bath in Fangi river at around 12.00 noon. The appellant came from the eastern side and seen her alone, committed rape upon her. That place was one mile far from his village. Since he has closed her mouth, she could not raise alarm and she became pregnant after 1½ months. On recall, she identified her L.T.I. given on the F.I.R. She was again cross-examined and stated that she is not literate and she visited Police Station along with her father where this statement was given. She also replied that she has no certificate about the birth of the daughter. She denied the suggestion that she had not delivered any girl child. P.W.2 Prasad Singh, who is father of victim lady also narrated the prosecution version in the same line as deposed by the victim that while he was in his residence the victim returned to the house and started weeping and disclosed about the commission of rape committed by Kuldeep Singh after putting cloth in her mouth. Then he approached the parents of the appellant where they became ready to solemnize marriage between them in the month of Fagun and advised not to disclose this fact before others. After this assurance, Kuldeep used to visit his place of residence frequently as a result of which the victim became pregnant. Then he approached the parents of the appellant where they became ready to solemnize marriage between them in the month of Fagun and advised not to disclose this fact before others. After this assurance, Kuldeep used to visit his place of residence frequently as a result of which the victim became pregnant. Then he again approached the parents of victim for marriage as she had became pregnant then they advised that when time will come marriage will be solemnized. They also demanded dowry. When they did not become ready for the marriage he approached the Police Station along with his daughter and report was lodged. After 2/3 months of lodgment of case, the victim delivered a girl child. During cross-examination, he replied that he has three daughters and one son. The victim is youngest daughter. He did not remember the day and date of occurrence but it was around 12.00 noon–1.00 p.m. The occurrence was near the Fangi river. He also replied that the medical examination was not done on that day. There was no quarrel between both the parties as the parents of Kuldeep became ready for the marriage. The labourers could not know about the incident but later it was known to all. The appellant was visiting his residence. He admitted that father of appellant is his cousin i.e. Mousera Bhai and by this relation accused and his daughter are brother and sister by relation. The marriages are not held between brother and sister but since the accused had committed wrong upon her that is why he became ready for this marriage and nobody had objected to it. He also admitted that father of appellant is Forest Guard serving for 34-35 years and at that time he was posted somewhere at Palamau. He also stated that they had agreed for the marriage in the month of Fagun and no relatives were called while this was agreed between them. Since the marriage was settled on the commission of wrong that is why no other relatives were called. Thereafter, accused used to visit his residence and sometime used to stay in the night also. Since the marriage was settled between them that is why he was not stopping him to visit. He could not remember that after how many days of the first occurrence his daughter became pregnant. Thereafter, accused used to visit his residence and sometime used to stay in the night also. Since the marriage was settled between them that is why he was not stopping him to visit. He could not remember that after how many days of the first occurrence his daughter became pregnant. He also stated that a Panchayti was held in the village but family members of the accused did not obey the order of Panch. He also replied that he belongs to village Murgu of Sisai Police Station. Earlier he was posted as Forest Guard and upon him a murder case was also lodged but no conviction was made. Lastly, he denied the suggestion that her daughter is entangled with her elder son-in-law and due to this reason, her marriage was not being fixed with anyone so he wanted to implicate the appellant for solemnization of marriage. P.W.3 Ghasia Munda is one of Panch who is known to the father of victim. He stated that a Panchayti was held but the parents of Kuldeep did not agree for the marriage with the daughter of accused. He also stated that during the Panchayti they said that child does not belong to Kuldeep Singh and refused for the marriage. He identified the accused. During cross-examination, he stated that Khandani (ancestral) home of Patur Singh is Murgu and he is doing cultivation work in his village. He also replied that Police had not taken his statement. He also replied that character of the victim was not good and she had fled away with someone from the village. P.W.4 Rakesh Laha is Advocate Clerk, a formal witness, who has proved the formal F.I.R. in the handwriting of Raghunath Singh, Officer-in-Charge of Lapung Police Station as Ext.1. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the case. He submitted that charges were framed under Sections 376 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code but the conviction was held only under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the place of occurrence was not proved. He also submitted that as per the statement of victim girl, other persons were also cutting paddy in the field but none of them were examined in this case. Neither the medical report of the girl was brought on record nor the Investigating Officer was examined in this case. He also submitted that as per the statement of victim girl, other persons were also cutting paddy in the field but none of them were examined in this case. Neither the medical report of the girl was brought on record nor the Investigating Officer was examined in this case. Therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained on account of the latches from the side of prosecution. Lastly, he submitted that F.I.R. was lodged after much delay as it was lodged on 21.04.1986 but the occurrence is said to have been taken place six months prior to lodgment. 6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidence of victim and her father, who have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, are sufficient to prove the occurrence committed by the sole appellant and there is consistency in their evidence. He further submitted that the statement of victim is sufficient to convict the appellant and the court below has rightly convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the appellant and their parents agreed for the marriage between victim and appellant and took time to delay the matter and lastly they refused to marry, thereby they also conspired to cheat the victim and his family. 7. Considering the above submissions of the parties and on perusal of the Lower Court Record and on scrutiny of the evidences adduced on behalf of both sides, it appears that the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.04.1986 and the allegation of rape which had occurred six months earlier near a tree by the side of Fangi river. It also appears that her statement is not supported with the medical evidence as the prosecution failed to brought on record the medical report with regard to rape committed upon the victim as well as pregnancy report or giving birth to baby child. The father of the victim has deposed on the basis of information given by the victim. P.W.2 father of the victim has admitted that victim and appellant both fall under the restricted relationship and marriage could not have been solemnized between them. He has admitted in his evidence that the father of appellant is his cousin i.e. Mousera Bhai and due to this relationship both could be termed as brother and sister. P.W.2 father of the victim has admitted that victim and appellant both fall under the restricted relationship and marriage could not have been solemnized between them. He has admitted in his evidence that the father of appellant is his cousin i.e. Mousera Bhai and due to this relationship both could be termed as brother and sister. Even assuming that after commitment of rape and agreement between the families of solemnization of marriage between two, the father of victim allowed them to continue this relationship therefore, it cannot fall under the category or provisions of rape. The matter was reported very late to the Police. The evidences of P.W.3 Ghasia Munda is also against the prosecution case and his evidence cast doubt over the character of the victim girl. Therefore, in this background, the appellant deserves benefit of doubt. Therefore, in such circumstances, judgment of conviction dated 7th March, 2003 and order of sentence dated 10th March, 2003 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-VI, C.B.I (A.H.D.), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.373 of 1986 is set aside by extending benefit of doubt to the sole appellant. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 9. Since the appellant is on bail, therefore he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 10. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned.