JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J. - The appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 376 (2)(i) IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 1 month, 1 year and 10 years respectively for the three offences. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 2.2.2015 shows that the conviction has been rested on the testimony of the prosecutrix who appeared as PW3, her two friends Santoshi, PW5 and Payal, PW6 and her father Bhanji, who appeared as PW1. 3. Process of criminal law was set into motion when PW1 gave a written report Ex.P-1 pursuant whereto FIR Ex.P-2 was registered. The written report was lodged on 14.1.2013 at around 12.30 noon. As per written report PW-1 informed that when his daughter went to the agriculture field the appellant raped her. Action should be taken against the appellant. 4. Since the appellant was named he was arrested on the same day at 7.30 PM as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.P-20. 5. The prosecutrix was examined on 14.1.2013 at 4.10 PM at the Government Hospital. The medical examination report Ex.P-5 records abrasions on the upper lip and the left knee and a swelling on the left knee. But the further examination report Ex.P-6 records no such injuries on further examination done on 14.1.2013 itself. It records that the hymen of the prosecutrix was having an old tear and the vagina easily admitted two fingers. It specifically records that no external injury was found. 6. Dr.Meenaxi Jain, PW-7, who has drawn the second report is categoric in her deposition that she saw no injury on the person of the prosecutrix when she examined the prosecutrix on 14.1.2013. 7. Dr.Jai Prakash Valmiki, PW-11, who has authored the first MLC report has deposed that when he medically examined the prosecutrix he recorded said injuries. 8. As per the prosecution the salwar of the prosecutrix which was seized after she was medically examined was sent for forensic examination and as per FSL report Ex.P-23 semen of group 'B' was detected. It be noted that semen of the same group was detected on the pant of the appellant when he was apprehended and the pant was seized. 9. It is in this backdrop that certain critical features of the evidence needs to be noted. 10. It be noted that semen of the same group was detected on the pant of the appellant when he was apprehended and the pant was seized. 9. It is in this backdrop that certain critical features of the evidence needs to be noted. 10. As noted above, the father of the prosecutrix appeared as PW1. He deposed that two girls reported to him that the appellant had caught his daughter and was raping her. He rushed to the field and caught the appellant there and then. 11. The prosecutrix, who appeared as PW3 has deposed that as she went to the field the appellant caught her. She shrieked. Her two friends Payal and Santoshi ran to the house. Her father came and caught the appellant on the spot. In cross-examination she admitted that the field where she claimed of being raped had been recently watered and mud was slushy. 12. Santoshi, PW-5, who has corroborated the prosecutrix has also admitted in cross-examination that on account of recently being watered the field was slushy. 13. The investigating officer, who has appeared as PW-14 has categorically admitted that the appellant was not apprehended at the spot. Though he stated that the clothes of the prosecutrix were smeared with mud but admitted that in the seizure memo said fact was not recorded. 14. The FSL report does not record that the salwar of the prosecutrix was soiled with mud. 15. As noted above, the MLC report of the prosecutrix records that she was habituated to sex. The hymen had a old tear. 16. As per the prosecutrix, her father and her two friends, the appellant was apprehended at the spot. The arrest memo shows that he was apprehended in the evening. A fact admitted by the investigating officer. 17. If the prosecutrix, as claimed by her and her two friends, was raped in the field, their admissions that on account of being recently watered the field was slushy, there would certainly have been mud stains on the salwar of the prosecutrix. The investigating officer claims that the salwar had mud on it but admitted that said fact was not recorded by him in the seizure memo. The forensic report also does not record that the salwar was soiled with mud. The investigating officer claims that the salwar had mud on it but admitted that said fact was not recorded by him in the seizure memo. The forensic report also does not record that the salwar was soiled with mud. This casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was raped in the morning of 14.1.2013 in the field in question. Photographs Ex.P-11 of the field also show the soil to be recently watered. 18. The aforenoted critical features emerging from the testimony of the witnesses and the other documents proved at the trial have been over-looked by the learned trial Judge. 19. The appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. 20. The appeal is allowed. Setting aside the impugned judgment dated 2.2.2015, the appellant is acquitted of the three charges framed against him. The sentences imposed upon him are set aside. The appellant be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. 21. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs.5,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the present judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.