JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. 2. Aforesaid appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Accordingly, both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 08.02.2019, passed by Sri Anuj Kumar, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Jamshedpur, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 101 of 2013, arising out of Jadugora P.S. Case No. 40 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 398 of 2012, whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Jamshedpur held the appellant Biren Sardar (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 373 of 2020) and appellant Ram Das Sardar ( Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 339 of 2019), guilty of offence under section 376 (2) g of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The fine amount if realized, was ordered to be paid to the victim. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the victim aged about 13 years alleging therein, that on the date of occurrence, she was going to the house of Bablu Ansari to watch television, while on the way, the appellants Ram Das Sardar and Biren Sardar accosted her, dragged her towards the house Of Hazi Ansari, where she was forced to consume Mahua liquor. Thereafter, at about 10:00 P.M., they took her to “Jahira Sthan” where she was raped by both the appellants. At about 11:30 P.M., co-villagers came there and found her naked and took her to the house of her uncle Deb Singh Sardar. 4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet on 25.09.2012 under section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila after taking cognizance, committed this case to the court of Sessions on 05.01.2013, as it was exclusively triable by the court of sessions. 5. Charge was framed against the appellants on 06.05.2013. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. 5. Charge was framed against the appellants on 06.05.2013. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 7. Lobo Sardar (P.W.1) is a hearsay witness. (P.W.2) is the victim of this case, she has supported the case as made out in her fardbeyan. Deb Singh Sardar (P.W.3) is the uncle of the victim, he is also a hearsay witness. Ranjit Sardar (P.W.4) the father of the victim is also a hearsay witness. Pamela Sardar (P.W.5) the mother of the victim is a hearsay witness. Umesh Tiwary (P.W.6) is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan which is Ext.-1. He has proved the pagination on the fardbeyan which is Ext.- 1/1. He has further proved the formal F.I.R. which is Ext.- 2. Dinesh Kumar (P.W.7) is the Judicial officer who had recorded the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. It has been marked as Ext.-5. 8. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication. 9. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Jamshedpur held the appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly. 10. Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathi, learned lawyer appearing for the appellants submitted that the informant has specifically stated that she was unconscious after consuming two bottles of liquor and as such she could not be aware whether she was raped or not. It was further submitted that the doctor who had medically examined the informant has not been examined, though, the medical report has been adduced in evidence as Ext.- 4. It was further submitted that the medical report reflects that there was no sign of recent intercourse. Finally, it was submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the victim was raped by the appellants. As such, it was prayed that both these appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charge. 11. Ms. Vandana Bharti learned A.P.P. has submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case. Finally, it was submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the victim was raped by the appellants. As such, it was prayed that both these appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charge. 11. Ms. Vandana Bharti learned A.P.P. has submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case. It was further submitted that the medical report states that she had sustained abrasions on various parts of her body which goes on to show that she was subjected to sexual assault. Accordingly, it was submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. Finally, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 12. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 13. The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The victim in her fardbeyan has stated that at about 10:00 P.M. the appellants had forced her to consume liquor. Thereafter, they took her to “Jahira Sthan”. On seeing somebody coming towards them they pushed her into a “Putush” bush and subsequently between 10:00 to 11:00 P.M., they raped her. At about 11:30 PM, villagers came there and took her to the home of her uncle Deb Singh Sardar. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ext.-5., she has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, both the appellants took her to the verandah of Hathi Sardar and forced her to consume liquor. Thereafter, they took her to “Jahira Sthan” where she was pushed into a “Putush” bush. Subsequently, both the appellants disrobed her and raped her. She gained consciousness on the next morning. 14. From the conjoint reading of her statement in the fardbeyan and the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., it transpires that both the appellants had taken her, firstly to the verandah of Hathi Sardar where she was forced to consume liquor, thereafter, they took her to “Jahira Sthan” and pushed her into a “Putush” bush, later on disrobed her and raped her. Subsequent to the sexual assault, she lost her consciousness. Subsequent to the sexual assault, she lost her consciousness. There is a slight variation in her statement as stated in her fardbeyan and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. to the extent that in her ferdbeyan she has stated that villagers took her home on the same night at 11.30 P.M., While in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she remained at the place of occurrence till 6.00 A.M. of the following morning. 15. Victim (P.W.2) in her statement has stated that the appellants had forced her to drink liquor. Thereafter, she lost consciousness, she was disrobed and raped, she sustained injuries on the various parts of her body. In her cross-examination she has stated that she was forced to consume liquor in the verandah of Hathi Sardar. She had gone in a naked condition to the house of Lobo Sardar and asked for clothes. In her cross examination, she stated that it is a fact that after consuming liquor, she became unconscious and she regained consciousness at 06:00 A.M. of the following morning. She has further stated that she was forced to consume liquor at 10:00 P.M., on the date of occurrence. According to her Putush shrubs were are full of thorns. She has also stated that when she was taken to “Jahira Sthan” she was not in her senses. 16. From the aforesaid oral testimony of the victim, it is evident that there is marked contradiction in her statement regarding the manner of occurrence as stated in her fardbeyan, as in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and what she has deposed during trial. In her fardbeyan and in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C she has stated that she was forced to consume liquor, thereafter, she was raped and subsequent to sexual assault she had lost her consciousness. In her evidence before the court, she has stated that at 10:00 P.M. she was forced to consume liquor and thereafter she regained consciousness at 06:00 A.M. of the following morning. Thus, it appears that during the period between 10:00 P.M., on the date of occurrence to 06:00 A.M., of the following morning she was unconscious, so naturally, she couldn’t be aware as to what had happened to her during this intervening period. Thus, it appears that during the period between 10:00 P.M., on the date of occurrence to 06:00 A.M., of the following morning she was unconscious, so naturally, she couldn’t be aware as to what had happened to her during this intervening period. Furthermore, there is another marked contradiction in the statement of the victim regarding the fact that after the occurrence at about 11:30 P.M., she was taken by the villagers to her uncle’s house. Deb Singh Sardar (P.W.3) her uncle, has stated that he came to know about the occurrence on the next day when he returned from work. He has not stated that villagers had brought the victim to his house in disheveled condition on the date of occurrence. Neither he has stated that the victim returned to his house at 06:00 A.M. and told him about the occurrence. In fact, he has stated that he had left for his work at 7.30 A.M. and thereafter when he returned in the evening, he came to know about the occurrence. There is further improvement in her statement before the court where she has stated that on the next day after she regained consciousness at about 06:00 A.M., she found herself in a naked condition and went to the house of Lobo Sardar, where she asked for clothes. Lobo Sardar (P.W.1) has stated that villagers had taken the victim to house of her uncle Deb Singh Sardar. He has not stated that the victim had come to her house, where she was given clothes. 17. Prosecution has not examined the doctor who had medically examined the victim. The medical report which is on the record shows that there was no sign of sexual intercourse. Medical evidence in this case is of paramount importance. From the evidence of victim, it is apparent that she was not in her senses when she was allegedly raped by the appellants. So, we have to gather from the circumstances whether the victim was raped or not. In absence of specific finding in the medical report that she was sexually assaulted this court cannot come to a definite conclusion on the basis of circumstantial evidence that she was raped by the appellants. There are marked inconsistency in the statement of the victim and that of the other prosecution witnesses. In absence of specific finding in the medical report that she was sexually assaulted this court cannot come to a definite conclusion on the basis of circumstantial evidence that she was raped by the appellants. There are marked inconsistency in the statement of the victim and that of the other prosecution witnesses. In the present case, which is based on circumstances, there has to be a complete chain of circumstances. The medical report shows that there was no sign of sexual intercourse. There were abrasions found on her body, but from her own admission, she was thrown into a Putush shrub which was full of thorns. Several links are missing in the circumstances to prove that the victim was raped by the appellants. 18. Considering the entire materials available on the record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants Biren Sardar and Ram Das Sardar beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt that they had sexually assaulted the victim. 19. The learned court below has erred in coming to the finding of guilt of the appellants. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is set aside. Both these appeals are allowed. 20. The appellants Biren Sardar (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 373 of 2020) and Ram Das Sardar (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 339 of 2019), are in custody. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 21. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.