JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/06/1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj, Distt. Sehore in Sessions Trial No.117/1996 whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for seven years along with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one year. 2. The case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is that victim (PW-3) (hereinafter referred to as ‘prosecutrix’) is wife of PW-2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’) lived in Village Amajhiri. On 21/03/1996 she went at the bank of river Narmada for washing cloths at 4.00 ‘O’ clock in the evening when she was washing the cloths the appellant came over there, caught hold her both hands and dragged her on the sand and forcibly committed rape over her. On hearing shriek, one independent witness Ramchandra Kewat (PW-6) who was present near the spot came over there then appellant fled away from the spot. Prosecutrix (PW-3) came along with Ramchandra Kewat (PW-6) at her home and uttered the whole story to her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and on the next day she went to Police Station, Rehati along with her husband i.e. ‘X’ (PW-2) and lodged an FIR (Ex.P/2). FIR lodged by S.C. Shrivastava, ASI (PW-4) and registered Crime No.56/1996 under Section 376 of IPC and sent the prosecutrix for medical examination. Dr. Smt. S. Beliya (PW-1) examined the prosecutrix and prepared report Ex.P/1. The matter was investigated by Bhagwat Singh (PW-5) who prepared spot map (Ex.P/3), seized broken pieces of bangles, pearl of necklace, prepared seizure memo Ex.P/4, recorded statement of prosecutrix, her husband- ‘X’, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and after completion of investigation, submitted a charge sheet before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj, Distt. Sehore. 3. 3. Learned trial Court registered the case as S.T. No.117/1996 and framed charges against the appellant who abjured his guilt. Learned trial Court proceeded for trial and recorded statement of Dr. Smt. S. Beliya, Husband of the prosecutrix - ‘X’(PW-2), prosecutrix (PW-3), S.C. Shrivastava, ASI (PW-4), Bhagwat Singh, Head Constable (PW-5) and Ramchandra (PW-6). 4. Sehore. 3. 3. Learned trial Court registered the case as S.T. No.117/1996 and framed charges against the appellant who abjured his guilt. Learned trial Court proceeded for trial and recorded statement of Dr. Smt. S. Beliya, Husband of the prosecutrix - ‘X’(PW-2), prosecutrix (PW-3), S.C. Shrivastava, ASI (PW-4), Bhagwat Singh, Head Constable (PW-5) and Ramchandra (PW-6). 4. In accused statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating evidence and circumstances came against him and pleaded the defence that he is having animosity with the husband of the prosecutrix. He ran thresher in the agriculture field of husband of the prosecutrix and her husband had not paid money for the same, however, when he has demanded the money repeatedly, he has been falsely implicated by her wife in the case. He did not examine any witness in his defence. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, delivered judgment dated 30/06/1999 finding proved the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC against the applicant convicted him and sentenced to undergo seven years RI along with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. 5. Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. There are so many contradictions and omissions found in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Prosecutrix categorically admitted that before this incident, there had been quarrel between the appellant and her husband, since then both were not talking to each other. She categorically admitted that before lodging the report, her husband told her that in what manner she had to report the matter and took her to the Office of Advocate Shri Yadav who guided her what matter should be included in the report, then she went to lodge the report at Police Station, Rehati, Distt. Sehore where she reported the matter as per the guidance of her husband. However, learned trial Court has neither considered these facts properly nor appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. In these premises, he prays that while allowing this appeal the impugned conviction and sentence may be set aside and acquit the appellant of the charge. 6. On the other hand, learned Govt. However, learned trial Court has neither considered these facts properly nor appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. In these premises, he prays that while allowing this appeal the impugned conviction and sentence may be set aside and acquit the appellant of the charge. 6. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the appellant on wrong grounds, therefore, prays for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of S.T. No.117/1996. 8. ‘X’ (PW-2) is the husband of prosecutrix. He categorically stated that on the date of incident he was not at home. When he came back at home in night about 8-9 ‘O’ clock, then his wife i.e. prosecutrix (PW-3) uttered the incident that when she was washing the cloths, appellant came over there and from back side caught hold her hand and forcibly rapped her. When Ramchandra (PW-6) came over there and scolded the appellant, then appellant went away from the spot. On the next day, he took her wife to Police Station Rehati and lodged report. Ramchandra (PW-6) has not supported the version of ‘X’ (PW-2). This witness categorically stated that no incident happened before him and he had never seen the incident. This witness declared hostile by the prosecution and also on asking leading question, he also did not support the case of prosecution. 9. 9. Now only one witness is prosecutrix (PW-3). Prosecutrix, in her examination-in-chief categorically stated the incident, however, in her cross-examination she admitted that at about 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. so many ladies of village came in the bank of river Narmada for taking water and washing cloths. So many persons of village bring their cattle to drink water (for hydration), however, further she clarified that at that time she was alone at the bank of river Narmada. 10. Prosecutrix (PW-3), in her cross-examination in para-12 categorically deposed that the appellant put her on the sand and when she was lying on the sand, appellant raised her petticoat and committed rape upon her for four minutes and at that time she was lying down comfortably. When the accused stood up after committing rape, then she also became stood. 10. Prosecutrix (PW-3), in her cross-examination in para-12 categorically deposed that the appellant put her on the sand and when she was lying on the sand, appellant raised her petticoat and committed rape upon her for four minutes and at that time she was lying down comfortably. When the accused stood up after committing rape, then she also became stood. Ramchandra (PW-6) was on the other side of the river Narmada and he came on the spot, then she went along with Ramchandra (PW6) at home. 11. 11. In para-13 of cross-examination, she categorically stated that the appellant is living in the same vicinity after three houses from her house and admitted that there is animosity between her husband and the appellant. Her husband guided her. Thereafter her husband took her at Nasrullaganj in the house of Advocate Yadav where Advocate Yadav guided her and at that time her husband was sitting outside and after that her husband had chat with the Advocate Yadav, then prosecutrix along with her husband went to the Police Station and reported the matter. She categorically deposed that “llqjky ls esjk ifr eq>s ysdj ul:Yykxat vk x;s A fQj esjk ifr ul:Yykxat esa eq>s ysdj ;kno odhy lkgc ds ;gkW vk x;s A ;kno odhy lkgc ds ;gkW esus fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ vkSj esjk ifr ckgj cSB x;k A fQj eSus vkSj esjs ifr us ;kno odhy lkgc ls ckr dh( vkSj fQj ge yksx Fkkus fjiksVZ djus x;s A eSus vkSj esjs ifr us ;kno odhy lkgc ls ,slk dgk Fkk( fd larks"k dks ,slk Qlkuk gS( fd mls Qklh yx tk;s A fQj ;kno odhy lkgc us eq>ls dgk fd tSlk geus le>k;k gS( oSlh gh fjiksVZ dj nks( rks bldks Qkalh yx tk;sxh A tc ;kno odhy lkgc eq>ls ,slk crk jgs Fks( rc esjk ifr eq>ls 4&6 dne nwjh ij uhe ds isM ds uhps cSBk Fkk A ;g lgh gS( fd tSlk odhy lkgc us le>k;k( oSlh fjiksVZ eSus dj nh A” 12. Prosexutrix in para-14 categorically stated that after lodging the report, they again came back to the Advocate Yadav and told him that they lodged the report as guided by him. 13. Considering the whole statement of prosecutrix, it is reflected that FIR had been lodged with consultation of her husband and under the guidance of professional Advocate Yadav. Prosexutrix in para-14 categorically stated that after lodging the report, they again came back to the Advocate Yadav and told him that they lodged the report as guided by him. 13. Considering the whole statement of prosecutrix, it is reflected that FIR had been lodged with consultation of her husband and under the guidance of professional Advocate Yadav. Sanctity of the statement of prosecutrix is very much lost in these circumstances. Her husband is having animosity with the appellant and her husband guided her for lodging the report in consultation with a professional Advocate. At the time of incident, there was possibility of presence of other persons. Prosecutrix categorically stated that Ramchandra (PW-6) saw the incident and he scolded the appellant, but, Ramchandra (PW-6) did not support the statement of prosecutrix. 14. Prosecutrix (PW-3) categorically stated that before the incident there was a dispute between her husband and appellant. They did not talk to each-other. There was a animosity between the husband of prosecutrix and appellant. Enmity as is often said is a double edged sword. It can be used to falsely implicate the other side and on the basis of forgoing discussions, it is found in the evidence of prosecutrix that she was tutored by her husband and guided by a professional Advocate, thereafter she lodged a report. No doubt, spermatozoa found in the vaginal smear of the prosecutrix, however, it is not having much impact in this case because prosecutrix is a major lady. She lodged a report after tutoring by her husband. Prosecutrix no where said that after incident she did not have any sexual intercourse with her husband. No DNA test was conducted by the prosecution to show that in the DNA, spermatozoa found in vaginal smear of prosecutrix is matched with the spermatozoa smear of the appellant. 15. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that considering the contradictions and tutoring came in the evidence of prosecutrix, it is difficult to rely upon the statement of prosecutrix (PW-3). She is a sole witness of the incident. Another witness who saw the incident is Ramchandra (PW-6) who has not supported the version of prosecutrix. No confidence reflected from the statement of prosecutrix. Thus, this Court is of the view that the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable, hence, on the basis of that statement, conviction cannot be upheld. 16. Another witness who saw the incident is Ramchandra (PW-6) who has not supported the version of prosecutrix. No confidence reflected from the statement of prosecutrix. Thus, this Court is of the view that the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable, hence, on the basis of that statement, conviction cannot be upheld. 16. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody, he be released forthwith and set free, if not requires in any other case.