JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calls in question the legal validity and defensibility of the judgment and order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.36/2012 (323/14), convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as under:- Under Section 376 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment Under Section 323 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Under Section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act Simple imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment Under Section 3(2)(w) SC/ST Act Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment 2. The broad essential facts which need to be adumbrated for the decision of the present appeal are that on 28.05.2012, the prosecutrix filed a complaint at Police Station, Mandal stating therein that she resides at Station Kheda with her family. The prosecutrix further stated that on 26.05.2012 at about 9:00 p.m., she went alone for latrine near a boundary wall of the school. The prosecutrix in the said complaint also stated that at that time, she was suddenly caught by a man from behind, and the man, while putting a handkerchief in her mouth, raped her. As mentioned in the complaint, the man further tried to take her away on his motorcycle forcibly, but she fell down from the motorcycle, and in the meanwhile, hearing her shout, one Rajesh Kanjar and another Bhura came running and tried to catch the accused, but he ran away. The prosecutrix further stated that the person, who committed rape upon her, was doing chunai work in her neighbourhood, and his name was Pappu s/o Rama Oad r/o Rampuria. The prosecutrix also stated that the accused, while running away, left his slippers and motorcycle at the spot. As per the prosecutrix, after the said incident, she was taken away to the hospital by her family members, and from there, she went to a hotel to have dinner. 3. The prosecutrix also stated that the accused, while running away, left his slippers and motorcycle at the spot. As per the prosecutrix, after the said incident, she was taken away to the hospital by her family members, and from there, she went to a hotel to have dinner. 3. On the basis of the aforementioned report, FIR No.128/2012 was registered against the present accused/appellant at Police Station, Mandal for the offences under Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(III) and 3(2)(w) of the SC/ST Act. The accused/appellant was arrested and investigation commenced, and thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents to prove its case. 5. The accused/appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the prosecution allegations, while claiming himself to be innocent. However, no evidence was led by the defence, except a police statement rendered by one Rajesh @ Rajeshiya, which was exhibited as Exhibit D-1. 6. The learned trial court heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and perused the material brought on record, while drawing its conclusion in the shape of the impugned judgment and order, and convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as mentioned above. 7. Mr. B.S. Charan, learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the incident itself has been alleged to have happened in the night of 26.05.2012 at 9:00 p.m., whereas the FIR has been lodged on 28.05.2012 without any explanation for the delay. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the evidence rendered by the prosecutrix does not instill confidence, as she has indicated conflict only at the stage when the accused/appellant was trying to take away the prosecutrix on his motorcycle. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecutrix has created a huge doubt in her story by not making a clear identification of the accused/appellant as to whether he was Rajendra or Pappu, or both were the names of the same person. Learned counsel has further shown the evidence rendered by PW-1 Dr. Suman Sharma, who, at the relevant time, was posted as Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara, and who, in her cross-examination, has stated that no firm opinion regarding the rape can be formed from the medical report in question. Learned counsel has further shown the evidence rendered by PW-1 Dr. Suman Sharma, who, at the relevant time, was posted as Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara, and who, in her cross-examination, has stated that no firm opinion regarding the rape can be formed from the medical report in question. Learned counsel further submitted that Exhibit P.1, the medical report indicates that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse and the opinion about the rape cannot be given at that stage. Learned counsel also stated that there was no FSL report, which could indicate the involvement of the accused/appellant in the commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution itself has not clarified as to the doubt between the names of Rajendra and Pappu, or as to whether they were the same persons or whether they were different. Learned counsel also stated that the prosecutrix, who was prosecution witness No.2 (PW-2), admitted in her crossexamination that the report, which was submitted by her at the police station was not on record, and the said version was also supported by PW-3 Sheela. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-5 Nathi stated in her cross-examination that they got the report typed at Mandal, and the same report was submitted at the police station, but the same has not been produced by the prosecution, as the name of the accused/appellant was not there in the report, which would have definitely led to collapse of the prosecution case, and thus, a concocted first information report dated 28.05.2012 has been registered. Learned counsel also submitted that in her evidence, the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the incident happened at 9:00 p.m. and it was a dark night, and while there was no light, she was raped by a person coming from behind; when the said person was trying to take her away on his motorcycle, he fled upon seeing Rajesh Kanjar and Bhura, who reached the spot. Learned counsel further submitted that there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix regarding her knowing Rajendra/Pappu, and that, there was no identification parade conducted by the prosecution, and such contradiction, as per learned counsel for the accused/appellant, has to be read in favour of the present accused/appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix regarding her knowing Rajendra/Pappu, and that, there was no identification parade conducted by the prosecution, and such contradiction, as per learned counsel for the accused/appellant, has to be read in favour of the present accused/appellant. Learned counsel thus submitted that the interested and material witnesses do not complete the chain of circumstantial evidence, rendering the evidence of the prosecutrix unreliable and untrustworthy, and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused/appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. Learned counsel concluded by contending that it is settled law that the guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is not there in the present case. 8. On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused/appellant and urged that the accused/appellant had committed rape upon the prosecutrix and the chain of circumstantial evidence read with evidence led by the prosecutrix clearly establishes the offence to have been committed by the present accused/appellant. 9. We have carefully seen the record of the case, while keeping into consideration the submissions advanced by both the sides, and has also seen the impugned judgment and order, which has narrated the whole incident, and the reasons assigned by the learned court below to arrive at such conclusion. 10. We first deal with the evidence rendered by PW-2, the prosecutrix, in which she has categorically deposed that while she was alone at dark place at about 9:00 p.m. at the school near a wall, where she went for latrine, she was caught from behind and was raped, and then she was being taken away on motorcycle, but was rescued by Rajesh Kanjar and Bhura, who also tried to catch the accused, but he ran away. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that the place was dark and there were no lights. She further stated that she does not know Rajendra and knows Pappu only. She also stated that she did not know Pappu before the incident. Her saying that she did not know Pappu before the incident took place is an expression which has to be looked into seriously, as it is creating a clear contradiction. She further stated that she does not know Rajendra and knows Pappu only. She also stated that she did not know Pappu before the incident. Her saying that she did not know Pappu before the incident took place is an expression which has to be looked into seriously, as it is creating a clear contradiction. Furthermore, her deposing that she did not know Rajendra is also worth-noticing. The emphasis of the prosecutrix upon the fact that the accused/appellant, after committing rape, was trying to take her away on his motorcycle, but they both fall from motorcycle, is also a fact that creates a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the incident, as to whether it was a forcible act of rape or not. The prosecutrix has categorically submitted that she was taken to hospital, but she went to a hotel for taking dinner, which shows her physical condition. The rape report does not confirm the rape, but suggests that it cannot be denied also. The injury report does not indicate much as the injuries upon the body of the prosecutrix are mere abrasions in the limbs, and the fact of her falling from the motorcycle, when being taken away by the accused, was reflected in the statement given before the police. The prosecutrix has confirmed that no identification parade was carried out, and it has also been deposed by the prosecutrix that normally she went for latrine alongwith other ladies, but on that day, she went alone. The prosecutrix has further deposed that she did not scream or shout, until she fell from the motorcycle, as she had a cloth in her mouth. 11. Pw-1 Dr. Suman Sharma, in her statement, has stated that she is not in a position to give a definite opinion regarding the rape, as the smear, saliva, blood sample etc. have been sent for FSL examination. 12. Pw-3 Sheela, in her statement, has merely stated that the prosecutrix came to her and narrated the whole incident. 13. Pw-4 Rajesh s/o Shri Sampat Ji, in his statement, has deposed that the accused/appellant was trying to take away the prosecutrix on his motorcycle, and when he alongwith Bhoora reached the spot, the accused ran away. This witness, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he is a close relative of the prosecutrix. 14. 13. Pw-4 Rajesh s/o Shri Sampat Ji, in his statement, has deposed that the accused/appellant was trying to take away the prosecutrix on his motorcycle, and when he alongwith Bhoora reached the spot, the accused ran away. This witness, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he is a close relative of the prosecutrix. 14. Pw-5 is Nathi, who, in her statement, has deposed that the prosecutrix told her the whole story on returning home. 15. Pw-6 is Shobha Lal, who, in his statement, has supported recovery and the site plan and has been stated to be the neighbour of the prosecutrix. 16. Pw-7 is Ramchandra, who, in his statement, has only narrated what was told to him about the incident. 17. Pw-8 is Ratan Lal who has become hostile to the fact of recovery of the underwear of the accused/appellant. 18. Pw-9 Lalu Ram was the Head Constable, who had received the samples for FSL. 19. Pw-10 is Debilal, who has supported the arrest memo and recovery of the underwear of the accused/appellant, while stating, in his cross-examination, that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper. 20. Pw-11 Girdhari lal who was the Constable in the Police Station, Mandal, had processed the samples for FSL. 21. Pw-12 Nemichand, who, at the relevant time, was posted as SHO, Police Station, Mandal, has stated that the prosecutrix alongwith her mother-in-law Sheela had come to the police station on 28.05.2012 at 6:30 p.m., and submitted the report, and thus, the investigation was conducted. The investigating officer, in cross-examination, has stated that none of the allegations were pertaining to caste orientation of the prosecutrix. 22. Pw-13 Booglal Meena, who, at the relevant time, while being posted as C.O., Mandal has also accumulated the evidence including the rape report, injury report etc. He, in the crossexamination, has admitted that he has not taken any document regarding Pappu and Rajendra being the same person. 23. Pw-14 Mohd. Yunus Sheikh, who was again not the eye witness to the rape, but, in his cross-examination, has deposed that it was quite dark and he did not know Rajendra/Pappu. In the statement, this witness has deposed that he was merely trying to catch the accused going away on the motorcycle, while he was trying to take away the prosecutrix forcibly. 24. In the statement, this witness has deposed that he was merely trying to catch the accused going away on the motorcycle, while he was trying to take away the prosecutrix forcibly. 24. Pw-15 Sanju, who is the husband of the prosecutrix, has merely narrated the incident of the prosecutrix being forcibly tried to be taken away by the accused/appellant. 25. Pw-16 Harish Kumar, at the relevant time, was posted as Head Constable at the Police Station, Mandal, and was incharge of the malkhana and processed the articles for FSL report. 26. Pw-17 Dr. Gyanprakash Maheshwari, who at the relevant time, was posted as Medical Jurist, has expressed his opinion about the seven injuries upon the prosecutrix. Injury No.1, scratch and swelling on ring finger; injury No.2, blueish- black right side eye; injury No.3, abrasions on front; injury No.4, a scratch on right cheek; injury No.5, scratch on left leg; injury No.6, scratch on left elbow and; injury No.7, scratch on right hand. The doctor has also deposed about the injuries on the body of Rajesh s/o Sampatiya. Injury No.1, scratch on left knee and injury No.2 scratch on middle finger of right hand. The doctor, in the cross-examination, has deposed that these injuries could have also been caused by a bush. The doctor has further stated that Exhibit-1 does not indicate the external injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. 27. We have has also carefully gone through the FSL Report, which does not give any indication about the incident in question. 28. The aforesaid chain of circumstantial evidence does not inspire any confidence, so as to suggest that the incident has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is essential and mandatory in nature. The fact of the accused/appellant trying to take away the prosecutrix on his motorcycle after the rape, and the motorcycle as well as both of them falling down, has not been dealt with by the learned court below, so as to indicate that it was not reason for causing the injuries- the abrasions and scratches on the body of the prosecutrix and Rajesh s/o Sampatiya. The delay from 26.05.2012 night 9:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on 28.05.2012 is also not explainable. The mere possibility of the offence not being ruled out does not mean that the accused/appellant can be convicted. The delay from 26.05.2012 night 9:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on 28.05.2012 is also not explainable. The mere possibility of the offence not being ruled out does not mean that the accused/appellant can be convicted. The prosecutrix herself has created a thrust in her statement upon the accused/appellant taking her away on the motorcycle after the rape and falling when alarm was raised. The prosecutrix has stated that she did not shout until she was being taken away on the motorcycle as she had a cloth in her mouth. The prosecutrix has also stated that it was dark and she did not know Rajendra and/or Pappu until the day of incident. The prosecutrix has also created a lot of doubt by stating that she does not know Rajendra, the present accused/appellant. The prosecutrix has further denied the report before the police to be the report made by her. 29. A small contusion on the thigh of the prosecutrix and the scratches on the legs and hand do not indicate any violence, which could be an outcome of a sexual assault and could be from her falling from the motorcycle. 30. The identification parade was not conducted and the FSL does not connect the accused/appellant with the crime. There are no eye witnesses to the incident and lot of questions remained unanswered. The prosecution witnesses, one after another, have mechanically deposed the incident, even while admitting that they were not eye witness to the incident of rape. The prosecutrix has wavered a lot in her statement and has indicated facts, like rape by an unknown person coming from behind, a total darkness at the place of incident, she not knowing the accused, she is not clear about the names and her statement before the police that she fell alongwith the motorcycle, while being taken away by the accused on alarm being raised. 31. Thus, in the present case, prosecution story is doubtful. In a case resting on uneven evidence, the prosecution is required to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused and negate the possibility of his innocence. However, in the present facts and circumstances brought on record, the prosecution has failed to lead to the conclusion towards the guilt of the accused/appellant, and thus, the possibility that the present accused/appellant is innocent, cannot be ruled out. However, in the present facts and circumstances brought on record, the prosecution has failed to lead to the conclusion towards the guilt of the accused/appellant, and thus, the possibility that the present accused/appellant is innocent, cannot be ruled out. Thus, the offences have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 32. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the learned trial court and the sentence awarded to the accused/appellant are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant, who is in custody, be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Record of the trial court be returned forthwith.