JUDGMENT : ANAND PATHAK, J. 1. Since matter arises out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-08-2004 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhind in S.T. No. 43/2001, therefore, these three appeals are heard analogously and decided by a common order. Cr. A. No. 538/2004 and Cr. A. No. 560/2004 are preferred by the accused persons and Cr. A. No. 709/2004 has been preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence. For convenience sake, all the three appeals have been heard together and decided by a common order and facts of the case are borrowed from Cr. A. No. 538/2004 for consideration. 2. It is the case of prosecution that accused Kamla Bai is mother of co-accused Ramvijay and other co-accused Kesh Kumar and Gulle are brothers of her son-in-law. Kamla Bai resides with Raghuvir Das. Daughter of Kamla Bai-Rekha eloped with son of prosecutrix- Akhilesh and chain of incident thereafter started on the report of Rekha. Accused Raghuvir Das and Kamla Bai were tried for the offence under Sections 343 and 376 of IPC by way of S.T. No. 21/2001 and vide Judgment dated 13-11-2003 acquittal was recorded in their favour. 3. As per story, since son of prosecutrix (Akhilesh) eloped with daughter of Kamla Bai (Rekha), therefore, harbouring animosity and to wreak vengeance; Kamla Bai, Raghuvir Das, Ramvijay, Kesh Kumar and Gulle along with two other persons and one driver of vehicle Tata Sumo barged in the house of prosecutrix at Purani, Bhind but she was smart enough to escape and she went to her other house at Harsh Nagar, Etawah but they chased her and from there they picked up prosecutrix and her son Vijayshankar (son other than Akhilesh) and took them back to Bhind at residence of Kamla Bai near tube well and were illegally detained. Raghuvir Das committed rape over the prosecutrix from 14-09-2000 to 26-09-2000. Police rescued them on 27-09-2000. On the report of prosecutrix Ex-P/6, case was registered and investigation carried out. 4. On 27-09-2000 medical examination of prosecutrix vide Ex-P/3 carried out and accused Raghuvir Das was examined on 28-11-2000 by Dr. R.N. Rajoriya (PW-1) and report Ex-P/1 was obtained. Samples of prosecutrix of vaginal swab, pubic hair were taken and referred for examination. Accused were arrested and after investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Sessions. 5. 4. On 27-09-2000 medical examination of prosecutrix vide Ex-P/3 carried out and accused Raghuvir Das was examined on 28-11-2000 by Dr. R.N. Rajoriya (PW-1) and report Ex-P/1 was obtained. Samples of prosecutrix of vaginal swab, pubic hair were taken and referred for examination. Accused were arrested and after investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Sessions. 5. Charges were framed by the trial Court. The appellants/accused abjured their guilt. Trial was conducted. On behalf of prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined whereas on behalf of defence, no witness examined. In their defence, accused have taken the stand of enmity existing between the parties wherein son of prosecutrix eloped with daughter of accused. 6. After considering the evidence (oral as well as documentary) led by the parties and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, trial Court convicted the appellants as referred above. Being crestfallen by the same, accused preferred the appeal taking exception to the judgment of conviction. 7. It further appears that the State Government also preferred appeal being persuaded by the fact that trial Court convicted the appellant Raghuvir Das for three years for the offence under Section 376 of IPC which is illegal because Section 376 of IPC prescribes minimum sentence of 7 years and therefore, once minimum sentence is prescribed then the trial Court erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against Raghuvir Das and awarding sentence of 3 years only. Therefore, separate criminal appeal vide Cr. A. No. 709/2004 has been preferred by State Government for enhancement of sentence qua Raghuvir Das. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that prosecution has cooked up a false story at the instance of the complaint filed by the prosecutrix to wreak vengeance over the family members of her daughter-in-law Rekha who as per allegation eloped with son of prosecutrix-Akhilesh. Ex-P/10 is Dehati Nalishi dated 27-09-2000 in which incident is reported to be prior to 27-09-2000 and in her Court statement vide Ex-P/10 prosecutrix has referred the incident whereby rape was committed over her and electric shocks were inflicted chilly spreaded all over her body and she was beaten up. Accused Kamla Bai gave blow of lower limb over her chest but medical report goes otherwise. MLC report Ex-P/3 indicates no mark of injury around genital and no blood or seminal stains found around genital. Hymen was ruptured but not inflamed. Accused Kamla Bai gave blow of lower limb over her chest but medical report goes otherwise. MLC report Ex-P/3 indicates no mark of injury around genital and no blood or seminal stains found around genital. Hymen was ruptured but not inflamed. Opinion of medical expert Dr. Pratibha Saxena (PW-4) in para-2 indicates that in medical examination of prosecutrix, everything was normal which indicates that false story was cooked up by the prosecution. 9. It is further submitted that although Vijayshankar son of prosecutrix (PW-13) was alleged to be beaten up by the accused persons and was hanged but interestingly medical examination of Vijayshankar never conducted so that injury could have come to the fore. In absence of medical examination of Vijayshankar-victim, allegation of physical abuse or injury cannot be sustained. While referring para-36 of the witness Vijayshankar (PW-13), learned senior counsel Shri Saxena submits that he admitted the fact that his father was present when incident of abduction took place but surprisingly father kept mum for many days from 14-09-2000 to 26-09-2000 and neither told the incident to police authority nor made any attempt to trace them. Even in para-5 witness mentioned the fact that attempt was made for abduction by accused persons at Bhind but could not succeed, then surprisingly the said incident also went unreported by complainant. Same witness in para-8 and 9 referred the fact of assault and physical violation as well as infliction of electric current but in para-39 he admitted that no medical examination took place. These circumstances, created doubt in the prosecution story and it renders the prosecution story concocted one. 10. While referring testimony of Pappu (PW-7) and Lakhan (PW-8) in whose presence victims were recovered by the police from possession of accused, it is submitted that they did not support story of prosecution and turned hostile. In sum and substance, appellants/accused persons sought acquittal while setting aside the judgment of trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made by the appellants and submitted that seizure of prosecutrix (PW-10) and Vijayshankar (PW-13) was proved through Station House Officer, Satish Dubey (PW-14) who narrated the story and his testimony indicates that victims were seized from the possession of accused. FSL report Ex-P/11 indicates that semen found over the clothes of Raghuvir Das and therefore, possibility of rape exists. FSL report Ex-P/11 indicates that semen found over the clothes of Raghuvir Das and therefore, possibility of rape exists. Learned counsel for the respondent/State relied upon different paras of impugned judgment of conviction to bring home the fact that trial Court rightly passed the impugned judgment, which needs no interference. He prayed for dismissal of Cr. A. No. 538/2004 and 560/2004. 12. Shri R.K. Mishra, Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State in Cr. A. No. 709/2004 submits that trial Court erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-08-2004 and further submitted that punishment be enhanced from 3 years to 7 years. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence available on record. 14. This is the case where the case of prosecution is based upon the testimony of victims- Prosecutrix (PW-10) and her son Vijayshankar (PW-13). Story started from Dehati Nalishi (Ex-P/10) reported at the instance of prosecutrix in which she referred the fact that her son Akhilesh eloped with Rekha-daughter of Kamla Bai, one of the accused persons and therefore, because of that enmity the accused persons committed such offence as narrated in the case of prosecution earlier. Allegation of rape, torture by administering and spreading chilly and petrol and electric current have been referred. Same happened with Vijayshankar (PW-13), he was beaten up by hanging and was tortured by inflicting electric current. Therefore, oral and documentary evidence gain significance. Documentary evidence can only be referred mainly through medical report. Medical report of the prosecutrix is placed as Ex-P/3 and she was examined by Dr. Pratibha Saxena (PW-4) who gave her opinion in following words: “No marks of injury on the body. No marks of injury around genitals. No blood or seminal stains around genital. Vagina admits 2 fingers easily, but normal size. No bleeding. Hymen was ruptured but not inflamed.” 15. Pratibha Saxena (PW-4) who gave her opinion in following words: “No marks of injury on the body. No marks of injury around genitals. No blood or seminal stains around genital. Vagina admits 2 fingers easily, but normal size. No bleeding. Hymen was ruptured but not inflamed.” 15. The said medical opinion indicates that her physical condition was normal, hymen was ruptured but not inflamed and no injury over internal or external part found over or around genital which appears to be surprising because if woman who experienced menopause and subjected to rape with such frequency as alleged, then it is obvious that she would receive some injuries; either external or internal; specially when she was subjected to torture through chilly which rubbed over her body after removal of clothes and subjected to torture spreading petrol over her person and inducing electric current to her. No mark of injury of any nature was referred by the doctor. When Dr. Pratibha Saxena (PW-4) came in witness box then she reiterated the opinion given earlier and her testimony indicates that no sign of injuries were found; external or internal. No injuries were found around her genital or no blood or semen was found. No definite opinion could have been given regarding sexual assault. If this evidence is seen in conjunction with the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-10) then it appears that she narrated the story which does not match the medical report. 16. Besides that her story contains some inherent flaws like when she says that attempt was made by the appellants to abduct them at Bhind then they escaped and moved to Etawah. If accused persons tried to commit criminal trespass/house trespass and tried to abduct them then how she did not raise alarm in the vicinity and how she did not report the matter to the police, are the questions which stare at the prosecution. When she moved to Etawah then the accused persons again followed them and abducted from Etawah in broad daylight in front of many persons because their home was in the market area. There also; no alarm was raised, no information given to the police and apart from that husband of victim and father of Vijayshankar (PW-13) was admittedly in the house and left behind. There also; no alarm was raised, no information given to the police and apart from that husband of victim and father of Vijayshankar (PW-13) was admittedly in the house and left behind. Why he was not abducted and why he did not raise alarm or he did not inform the police for twelve days which is a quite long period for a husband to bear absence of his wife under such adversity, making the case more doubtful. Vijayshankar (PW-13) in his cross-examination admitted the fact that his father was present in their home when abduction took place (PW-13 in para-36), therefore, this makes story doubtful. 17. Another aspect in the case is avoidance of prosecution to conduct medical examination of Vijayshankar (PW-13). When the victim Vijayshankar (PW-13) subjected to such torture and when he lived for twelve days under such stress and adverse circumstances where physical abuse and assault were alleged, therefore, it was the duty of the prosecution to take Vijayshankar (PW-13) for medical examination but omission to undergo medical examination further makes the case doubtful. Perusal of para-8 and 9 of chief-examination in juxtaposition to para-39 of Vijayshankar (PW-13), makes the fact more clear. 18. Another aspect goes against the case of prosecution, is turning of seizure witnesses as hostile. Pappu (PW-7) and Lakhan (PW-8) who were witnesses in whose presence victims were recovered from the possession of accused persons, did not support the story of prosecution and turned hostile. Even otherwise one of the appellants-Raghuvir Das's clothes were taken on 20-12-2000 Ex-P/11 and since Raghuvir Das is major married male, therefore, it is possible that semen over his clothes were found because of his proximity with his wife. Prosecution had to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Motive of the complainant party can be gathered because of incident and estranged relations shared by them because of elopement of daughter of present accused with son of complainant. Interestingly in the evidence this fact came out that daughter of accused was already married and blessed with children and when she eloped with the boy Akhilesh who was young in age then heart burning is imminent, especially in rural area where such relations bring social discord and at times honour killing. Enmity is Rapier (double edged sword) therefore, complainant had motive to implicate the accused persons and she cooked the story to implicate them on false pretext. Enmity is Rapier (double edged sword) therefore, complainant had motive to implicate the accused persons and she cooked the story to implicate them on false pretext. The trial Court erred in not considering these aspects and material contradictions as referred above and erred in convicting the appellants and awarding jail sentence. 19. In the considered opinion of this Court, prosecution could not prove its case in respect of offence under Sections 366, 365, 344 and 376 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the very genesis of incident appeared doubtful. Offence of rape cannot be considered to be committed by the appellant-Raghuvir Das. Therefore, conviction of appellants for the charges as referred above is bad in law. Resultantly, Cr. A. No. 538/2004 and 560/2004 preferred by the appellants/accused are allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-08-2004 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. They are set free. 20. Since the criminal appeals preferred by the appellants/accused against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and acquitted from all the charges, therefore, Cr. A. No. 709/2004 preferred by the State sans merits and is virtually rendered infructuous because no case is made out against the appellants for conviction, therefore, no question of enhancement of jail sentence arises. Accordingly, Cr. A. No. 709/2004 preferred by the State is hereby dismissed. 21. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.