JUDGMENT : 1. By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 12.06.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bari in Sessions Case No. 5/2013. The accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 376 IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 months’ additional simple imprisonment. Under Section 323 IPC 6 Months’ S.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days’ additional simple imprisonment. Under Section 342 IPC 6 Months’ S.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days’ additional simple imprisonment. (All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are as under. An FIR was registered on a written-report of complainant Babulal. It was alleged that on 11.03.2010, at around 03:00 P.M. when he returned back after doing his work then his daughter at the age of 7 years was brought by her friends. She was crying. He came out of the hut and found that blood was oozing out from her neck and private parts. He asked the victim about the incidence. It was disclosed that one man has committed rape on her. 3. On the written-report, Ex.P-1 the FIR for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 376 IPC was registered. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 376(2)(f) IPC. The court framed the charges for those offences and explained to the accused. The charges were denied by the accused, thus, trial commenced. In the trial, prosecution produced eighteen witnesses apart from twenty-four documents to prove their case. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He produced two documents in defence. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 376 instead 376(2)(f) IPC. The conviction was made even for the offence under Sections 323, 342 IPC. A challenge to the judgment of the trial court has been made in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence to prove case against the accused. The trial court yet convicted the accused appellant. It is based on surmises and conjectures. A challenge to the judgment of the trial court has been made in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence to prove case against the accused. The trial court yet convicted the accused appellant. It is based on surmises and conjectures. Coming to the facts of the case, it is submitted that the accused was not named in the FIR as he was not known to the complainant party. He was not even seen by anyone though PW-1 Durjan Singh has stated that accused was seen running out of the hut but in the identification parade, he identified a wrong person. In the court statement, it was admitted that he could not see the face of the person running from the scene of occurrence and it can be someone else also. 5. Prosecutrix PW-7 identified the accused but it was admitted that photograph of the accused was shown to her by the father with a direction to identify the accused in the jail. In the identification note, Ex.P-7 it is mentioned that the accused was shown to the prosecutrix prior to the identification. In view of the above, the identification Ex.P-7 could not have been relied by the trial court. In the absence of the identification of the accused and as he was not named in the FIR, he could not have been connected with the crime so as to be convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The reference of the statement of the investigating officer PW-14 Sahi Ram, has also been given. The said witness has also admitted that in the identification parade, PW-1 Durjan Singh did not identify the appellant but to other person. In view of the above, the prosecution was required to bring other evidence to connect the accused with the crime and to prove its case beyond doubt. No recovery at the instance of the accused has been made and otherwise no material has been collected to prove the case against the accused. 6. The recovery of the clothes of the prosecutrix and FSL report has been brought on record but prosecution has failed to bring any evidence to connect the accused with the recovery of the clothes of the prosecutrix and even for that the FSL report. 6. The recovery of the clothes of the prosecutrix and FSL report has been brought on record but prosecution has failed to bring any evidence to connect the accused with the recovery of the clothes of the prosecutrix and even for that the FSL report. In view of the above, the accused should have been acquitted of the offence instead of being convicted. The prayer is to set aside the judgment of the trial court and accordingly the appellant be acquitted. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. He submits that the prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt. Thus, interference in the judgment of the trial court may not be made. He has made reference of the evidence laid by the prosecution to prove its case which would be discussed while dealing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. We have accordingly scanned the record carefully and perused the judgment of the trial court. 9. It is a case where an FIR was lodged for commission of offence under Sections 323, 342, 376 IPC. No one was named for commission of the offence. The FIR does not give description of the accused either in the form of age or physique. The investigation was caused and thereupon a charge-sheet was filed followed by framing of the charges. Since charges were denied by the accused, the trial commenced. In the trial PW-1 Durjan Singh has supported the prosecution case. In the examination-in-chief he has stated to have seen the accused appellant running from the scene of occurrence holding his pant. He was cross-examined and there admitted that he could not see the face of the person who ran after commission of the offence. It can be even some other person than the accused herein. The statements of the cross-examination of the said witness shows that he had not seen face of the accused. In the identification parade Ex.P-20, he could not identify the accused, rather identified some other person. In view of the above, the statement of PW-1 could not have been relied by the trial court for conviction of the accused. 10. The other witness produced by the prosecution is PW-2 Satish. He has stated about the commission of the offence. The said witness has, however, not made allegation against the appellant for commission of the offence. In view of the above, the statement of PW-1 could not have been relied by the trial court for conviction of the accused. 10. The other witness produced by the prosecution is PW-2 Satish. He has stated about the commission of the offence. The said witness has, however, not made allegation against the appellant for commission of the offence. The said witness, has given description of the physical appearance of the accused which otherwise has not been narrated in the FIR. PW-3 Omwati is mother of the prosecutrix and has supported the prosecution case. She had not seen the accused for commission of the offence but has stated about the incidence based on the information given by her daughter. In the cross-examination, she has stated about the identification of the accused by her daughter. In reference to her statement if Ex.P-7, identification parade note is seen, prosecutrix has identified the accused but a note has been put thereunder. It is to the effect that accused was shown prior to the identification parade. Thus, Ex.P-7 could not have been relied by the trial court. If the statement of PW-7 Usha is also seen in reference to it i.e. the statement of prosecutrix, it would show that photograph of the accused was shown by her father before identification parade. It was with the direction to identify the accused in the jail. In the chief, she has not disclosed name of the accused and even his physical appearance. In the court she, however, identified the accused but then identification parade Ex.P-7 cannot be relied and otherwise in the cross- examination, she has admitted that before identification parade photograph of the accused was shown to her. 11. The statement of PW-14 Sahi Ram is also relevant to find out whether the prosecution could produce any evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The perusal of the statement does not show that the prosecution had made any recovery from the accused so as to connect him with the crime. It is also that no material was brought otherwise to connect him with the crime. It is more-so when no one had seen the occurrence. The only evidence is that one person was seen running out of the hut but it was the accused, could not be proved by the prosecution. It is also that no material was brought otherwise to connect him with the crime. It is more-so when no one had seen the occurrence. The only evidence is that one person was seen running out of the hut but it was the accused, could not be proved by the prosecution. The documents produced by the prosecution nowhere connect the accused with the crime and for that we have even perused Ex.P-23, FSL report. Therein, no article belonging to the accused was recovered or sent for the FSL so as to show his involvement in the crime. 12. We have gone through the statements of other witnesses as well but do not find any evidence to connect the accused with the crime though the prosecution has proved about the injury to the prosecutrix and blood on her clothes but then they were required to bring evidence to show involvement of the accused for the aforesaid. The prosecution has failed therein. Thus, we find that the prosecution failed in proving its case beyond doubt. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that accused was in jail due to other case and was implicated falsely by the police. The fact of aforesaid has been admitted by PW-14 Sahi Ram i.e. the investigating officer. Taking into consideration the facts available on record, we do not find that the prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt. Rather the appellant should have been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for that and accordingly we set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 12.06.2014 and acquit the accused for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 376 IPC. 14. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid. 15. As per Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellant-Chiku @ Naresh is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which will 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 will appear before the Supreme Court on receipt of notice thereof.