JUDGMENT : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - This appeal under Section 374 CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 25-4-1990 in Sessions Case No.53/1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo six month rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 7-5-1988 FIR was lodged at PS Gangapur City by prosecutrix alleging therein that on 6-5-1988 about 2.00 PM when she went to take water from the well of Bashir, the accused was taking bath, as soon as the prosecutrix took rope and balti for fetching water, the accused caught her hold from back and pushed her in the Guni of the well and started committing offence. When the prosecutrix tried to raise hue and cry the accused put lugri in her mouth and committed offence. After taking water from the well, the prosecutrix went to her house and then went to mother of accused and narrated the incident, thereupon mother of accused asked to take action against the accused. In the night the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and mother-in-law. It was alleged that when they were going to lodge the report the accused met wandering armed with lathi, therefore, did not lodge the report at that time. On the basis of report, FIR No.137/1988 came to be registered for offence under Section 376 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charge was framed. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. In his statements under section 313 CrPC the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that witnesses are family members of the prosecutrix and there is dispute regarding the land. He stated that the land in which complainant party is residing belongs to accused and they are trying get vacate the land therefore the false case has been lodged. He further stated since there is partition dispute with his uncle (Tau) therefore the cousin Hamid s/o Tau, got registered this false case from Imamuddin. He further state he has also contested election for the post of Panch against his uncle (Tau) Subrati, therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated since there is partition dispute with his uncle (Tau) therefore the cousin Hamid s/o Tau, got registered this false case from Imamuddin. He further state he has also contested election for the post of Panch against his uncle (Tau) Subrati, therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 25-4-1990 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. 3. The appellant preferred the instant appeal. Vide order dated 18-5-1990 suspended the sentence of the appellant. 4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that there is unexplained delay of more than one day in lodging the FIR, which is fatal to prosecution case, for the reason that the prosecutrix is a major and married lady who remained in company of her husband after the incident and before lodging the FIR as also before her medical checkup, which was conducted after two days of the incident. He argued that there are serious contradictions and discrepancies in statements of the prosecutrix, moreover the same are not corroborated with statements of her mother-in-law and husband. He argued that the incident of rape has been alleged to be occurred in an open place at the well, which is thickly populated and covered by 100/150 houses of villagers. There is no evidence on record to show that prosecutrix suffered any injury, even of minor nature, on her body or private parts. According to Dr. Radhey Sjhyamj Parashar (Pw.1) no external injury on the body of private parts of prosecutrix was found. Counsel for appellant has argued that from the evidence of the Investigating Officer the entire story of prosecutrix to commit rape by the appellant at the well becomes belied, as at the place of incident the Investigating Officer observed to lay pieces of lime stone and not BHUDA MITTI (sand). The site-report also fortify this fact. Counsel submitted that there is evidence on record that prosecutrix's family had animosity with the appellant and litigation to vacate the place, where the prosecutrix were pending, therefore, the possibility of false implication of appellant with ulterior motive cannot be ruled out. Counsel submitted that in such circumstances, the testimony of solitary evidence of prosecutrix is not trustworthy to convict the appellant, and the appellant deserves for the benefit of doubt. Counsel submitted that in such circumstances, the testimony of solitary evidence of prosecutrix is not trustworthy to convict the appellant, and the appellant deserves for the benefit of doubt. Reliance has been placed on Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2012)7 SCC 171 ], wherein the Apex Court held that if statement of prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and deliberate improvements on material points, no reliance can be placed thereon. On Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra [ (2006)10 SCC 92 ] wherein the Apex Court held that if the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are high improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. On Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. the State of Bihar [ (2020)3 SCC 443 ] wherein the Apex Court held that the solitary version of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt. On Prem v. State of UP, Criminal Appeal No.520/ 1999, decided on 6-9-2023, the Allahabad High Court found that there were contradictions in evidence of witnesses, no spermatozoa was found in the private part of prosecutrix, there was family dispute between prosecutrix and accused, no injury was found on private part or the body of prosecutrix, the delay in filing application was not explained, therefore, the court held that evidence of victim cannot be treated as gospel truth, and the conviction of accused was set aside. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant have supported the impugned judgment. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. According to prosecution case the allegation against appellant is to commit rape of prosecutrix on 6-5-1988 in day-light at about 2.00 PM at the well of appellant's father Bashir. FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by the prosecutrix on the next day 7-5-1988 at about 9.00 PM. The prosecutrix is major and married lady who has deposed in her statement about committing rape by the appellant at Guni of the well, where she went to take water from the well of appellant's father Bashir. FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by the prosecutrix on the next day 7-5-1988 at about 9.00 PM. The prosecutrix is major and married lady who has deposed in her statement about committing rape by the appellant at Guni of the well, where she went to take water from the well of appellant's father Bashir. According to her statement, appellant was taking bath at the well and he committed forceful rape on her in the open place at Guni of the well itself. She stated that string of her petticoat was broken and the appellant closed her mouth by filling Lugri in her mouth. From the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of solitary evidence of prosecutrix, and there is no other evidence to support/ corroborate the prosecution case. 8. The issue before this court is as to whether the solitary evidence of prosecutrix in the present case is of such sterling worth so as to convict the appellant for the offence of Section 376 IPC, and whether the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant, merely on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix, despite of being no corroborative/ supportive evidence on record. 9. In order to deal with the issue fallen for consideration, it would be appropriate to appreciate evidence of the prosecutrix (Pw.4), as well as other material witnesses including the mother-in-law of prosecutrix namely Naziran (Pw.5), husband of the prosecutrix Immamuddin (Pw.6), Dr. Radhey Shyam Parashar (Pw.1), and the Investigating Officer Deepak Bhatnagar (Pw.7), thus: The prosecutrix (PW.4) in her statement stated that when she went to fetch water from the well of father of the accused she was made to lay on sand and committed rape. During the offence the accused put cloth in her mouth. On raising hue and cry no person came to save her as the place was secluded. The incident was told to mother of accused, but she did not help. Her husband came at home around 8.00 PM and her mother-in-law came home after evening. In evening, some guest also came at the house. Since it was late, on the next day when she along with her husband tried to go to lodge the report the accused armed with lathi abused them. Therefore in the evening they went to lodge the report. In evening, some guest also came at the house. Since it was late, on the next day when she along with her husband tried to go to lodge the report the accused armed with lathi abused them. Therefore in the evening they went to lodge the report. She further stated that on the day of incident she took bath as there was roza. She stated that at the time of medical, her husband and mother-in-law was with her. Salwar was taken by the doctor. In her cross examination she stated that on the day of incident it was too hot, and it was not possible to walk without slipper. She stated that at the time of incident her NADA was broken, which was not given to police. She expressed ignorance about how much fields were there from the place of incident and village and that there was only one field of Bashir. She stated that Goni is that place where charas is put and make empty. Naziran (PW.5) in her statement has stated that on the date of incident she went to meet relatives near the college. She returned about 3:00 PM, Ruksana met her weeping, on asking, she told about the incident at the well of Bashir. Her son Imamuddin returned around 5:00 PM and the incident was told to him. Hafiz was standing armed with lathi, therefore, the report was not lodged on the same day and on the next day, his son and daughter-in-law went to Gangapur to lodge the report. In cross examination, she stated at around 5:00 PM, Hafiz was standing armed with lathi, therefore the report was not lodged. She admitted that Hafiz was not raising any alarm, nor he gave any threatening. She stated that no guest did come at the home on the date of incident. She admitted that she did not go with her daughter-in-law at the time of her medical examination. She further admitted that Hafiz did not stop her son and daughter-in- law from lodging the report. She admitted that Shubrati was member of the Panchayat and they were in favour of Shubrati. She admitted that Shubrati and Bashir are brothers. Imamuddin (PW.6) stated that on the day of incident, he reached home at about 8/8:30 PM, his wife was weeping, on asking, she told about the incident. She admitted that Shubrati was member of the Panchayat and they were in favour of Shubrati. She admitted that Shubrati and Bashir are brothers. Imamuddin (PW.6) stated that on the day of incident, he reached home at about 8/8:30 PM, his wife was weeping, on asking, she told about the incident. Since it was night, they did not go to lodge the report. In the morning, when they tried to lodge the report, Hafiz was wandering armed with lathi. In the evening, around 6:00 PM they left the home for Gangapur to lodge the report. The report was got written from his known Islam, which was submitted at Police Station. In cross examination, he admitted that the field of Hafiz is opposite the house of witness. The well is seen from the house, which is at a distance of 200/250 gaj. Between the well and village, fields are situated of Bashir, Shubrati and Mulla. Nishar and Hamid came to know about the incident and they came to his home. He admitted about the dispute between Shubrati and Bashir. He stated that Bashir never asked him to vacate the land. Dr. Radhey Shyam Parashar (PW.1) stated that he examined the prosecutrix regarding her rape. He did not find any injury on the body of prosecutrix nor any sign of recent rape. The Salwar of prosecutrix was taken, since there was some white spot, vaginal swab and spear was taken. In cross examination, he admitted that on washing clothes, there is no possibility of finding human sperm. Deepak Bhatnagar (PW.7) the SHO of Police Station, who conducted investigation has stated that the site plan (Ex.P3) was prepared by him. He stated that since the prosecutrix stated that the SALWAR was washed, therefore, he did not recover the same. He sent the prosecutrix for medical examination on the same night. The medical examination was conducted on 8th at about 8:30 AM. He admitted that there were 100-150 houses in the village. He admitted that at the place of incident, in the sand, there were pieces of lime. He denied that the said sand was BALU and he has written the same MORANT MITTI. He admitted that in the sand, pieces of lime were of the size of TIL. 10. He admitted that there were 100-150 houses in the village. He admitted that at the place of incident, in the sand, there were pieces of lime. He denied that the said sand was BALU and he has written the same MORANT MITTI. He admitted that in the sand, pieces of lime were of the size of TIL. 10. It is to be noted the prosecutrix admitted in her statement that after the incident she came back at the house after taking water from the well and took bath and she also washed her petticoat; thereafter she went to mother of the accused to make complaint of him about the incident; then she told the incident to her mother-in-law and thereafter to her husband in the night. The report was lodged by prosecutrix on the next day of incident in the night at about 9.00 PM. The reason for the delay in lodging the FIR has been disclosed that the appellant was standing out of her house armed with lathi, therefore, she could not go to police station to lodge FIR, even with her husband. The reason does not inspire confidence as prosecutrix herself went to accused's house to meet his mother. 11. Apart from the delay in lodging FIR, there are contradictions and discrepancies in the case as narrated by the prosecutrix in the FIR and narrated in court statements. In her court statement the prosecutrix told the time of incident about 10/11.00 AM, when she went to take water at the well of appellant's father Bashir, while in the FIR the time has been stated to be 2.00 PM. In court statement the prosecutrix told the place of committing offence at sand, whereas in the FIR she told the place to be Guni of the well. Similarly sequence of events as stated in the FIR have not been narrated by the prosecutrix in the same manner in her court statement. 12. Undisputedly the prosecutrix did not receive any injury on her body, either on her back or private parts. She has not deposed as to what happened when the string of her petticoat was broken, neither the said petticoat was handed over nor the broken string to the Investigating Officer. Admittedly she took bath had washed her clothes after reaching home. Undisputedly the prosecutrix did not receive any injury on her body, either on her back or private parts. She has not deposed as to what happened when the string of her petticoat was broken, neither the said petticoat was handed over nor the broken string to the Investigating Officer. Admittedly she took bath had washed her clothes after reaching home. After reaching after the incident she remained in the company of her husband in the night of 6-5-1988 and 7-5-1988 and her medical check up was done on 8-5-1988. 13. The evidence of Doctor (PW.1) does not support the case of prosecutrix about recent forceful rape. As per statement of the Investigating Officer (Pw.7) Deepak Bhatnagar at the place of incident pieces of lime stone were found, and the place of incident was populated and surrounded by 100-150 houses of villagers. The IO has clearly denied that at the place of incident there was sand. The IO did not recover the petticoat of the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix also does not find corroboration from the evidence of her mother-in-law and the husband. 14. On overall appreciation of evidence of prosecutrix, the evidence of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence for occurrence of aggravate forceful rape by the appellant with the prosecutrix in day light at about 2.00 PM in an open place which is surrounded by 100-150 houses of villagers and when there is not a single injury or scratch on the body. More particularly back or inner parts of prosecutrix showing any sign of a serious offence of forceful rape. The prosecution case narrated by the prosecutrix seems to be unnatural, so also lack of any supportive evidence. It is her admitted case that she went on her own at the well of appellant's father and after the incident, and returned to home after taking water from the well. She admits that immediately thereafter she took bath and washed her clothes. It is also admitted case of prosecutrix that she went to lodge the report on the next day but in the night, accompanying with her husband Imamuddin. 15. She admits that immediately thereafter she took bath and washed her clothes. It is also admitted case of prosecutrix that she went to lodge the report on the next day but in the night, accompanying with her husband Imamuddin. 15. In the plea of accused recorded under section 313 CrPC, he has clearly stated that in order to put pressure on accused the report was lodged against him with concocted story as the place where prosecutrix residing with her family belongs to appellant, and he had asked to vacate the place; the prosecutrix belongs to same family and property dispute is pending in the family, therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. 16. On appreciation of entire evidence of prosecution, this court finds that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be treated to that of confidence or sterling worth so as to prove the case of committing rape on the prosecutrix by the appellant. The narration of the story by prosecutrix is not liable to be accepted as gospel truth, since the evidence of the prosecutrix itself difficult to believe and further, does not find any corroboration either by ocular or medical evidence, nor by the investigating report submitted by the Investigation Officer. 17. In such view of the matter, as per principle of law, expounded by the Apex Court in cases of Narendra Kumar (supra), Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe (supra), Santosh Prasad (supra) and Prem (supra) the conviction of appellant for offence under section 376 IPC merely on the solitary evidence of prosecutrix is not liable to be affirmed. The solitary evidence of the prosecutrix does not fall within the category of sterling worth to prove the offence of appellant. The prosecution case is not established against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the accused appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. The learned trial court has committed error of fact and law in not properly appreciating the evidence of the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction of appellant under section 376 IPC is not sustainable in eyes of law. 18. As a result, the present appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 376 IPC are hereby quashed and set aside. 19. The appellant is on bail, he need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 20. Record of the trial court be sent back.