JUDGMENT : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. Both the criminal appeals arise out of common judgment, hence, same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Both the present criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.31/1992, whereby, the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 376 IPC (accused appellant- Ajay Pal @ Jaipal): Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo three month Simple Imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC (accused appellants- Roopa & Heera Lal): A sentence of fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to further undergo three month Simple Imprisonment. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 16.10.1989 victim lodged an FIR No. 225/1989 at Police Station Kishangarh, Ajmer, for the offences under sections 376, 341 and 323 IPC. The FIR reads as under:- 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal for the offence under section 376 IPC and against accused appellants Roopa and Heera Lal for the offences under sections 341, 447 and 323 IPC. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Session for the trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused appellant- Ajaypal @ Jaipal for the offence under section 376 and against accused appellants Roopa and Heera Lal for the offence under section 323 IPC. 6. From the prosecution side, the statements of thirteen witnesses were recorded and certain documents were exhibited. 7. The statement of the accused appellants were recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused appellants in their statements have denied about the allegations levelled against them that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. 8. The learned trial court vide its judgment 30.11.1993 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jail for the offence under section 376 IPC and the accused appellants Roopa & Heera Lal for the offence under section 323 IPC. 9. 8. The learned trial court vide its judgment 30.11.1993 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jail for the offence under section 376 IPC and the accused appellants Roopa & Heera Lal for the offence under section 323 IPC. 9. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants in both the criminal appeals argued and submitted that while passing the impugned judgment the trial court has failed to make proper appreciation of the facts and evidence of the case and failed to consider that there is no legal evidence against the appellants to connect them with the alleged crime. Counsel also submitted that trial court failed to consider the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence as the benefit of doubt was extended to the prosecution rather than to the accused appellants. Counsel further submitted that the prosecutrix is a married woman and is habitual of intercourse and her presence on the agricultural field of accused is self explanatory. Therefore, either it is a case of consent or false implication. Counsel also submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay. 10. Counsel also submitted that the PW1 Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain after examining the accused appellant- Ajaypal @ Jaipal had found him capable to have intercourse. This witness stated that within 24 hours of his medical examination the accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal had not inter-coursed with the victim. 11. Dr. D.N Chabaria (PW2) had examined the prosecutrix and he in his testimony stated that there was no injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix and further from the chemical examination report of ‘Dhoti’ and ‘Ghagra’ no sign of human semen is found from the examination of vaginal smear and swab. Therefore it is clear that the accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal has been falsely implicated as the allegations leveled are not corroboratory to the other evidence collected by the prosecution. 12. Counsel further submitted that there is no independent witnesses of the alleged occurrence. Counsel also submitted that there is no material injury on the private parts of either on the person of victim or the appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal. Counsel also submitted that the trial court has not considered the evidence produced by the defence. 13. 12. Counsel further submitted that there is no independent witnesses of the alleged occurrence. Counsel also submitted that there is no material injury on the private parts of either on the person of victim or the appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal. Counsel also submitted that the trial court has not considered the evidence produced by the defence. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed both the appeals and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the learned trial court and keeping in view the evidence on record, the accused appellants have been rightly convicted. 14. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and examined the material made available to the Court. 15. In the first, this Court shall consider the case of accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal in Criminal Appeal No.500/1993. Victim (PW3) in her examination before the trial court has stated that while she was taking bath after removing her clothes at her agriculture fields, the accused J.P. came there and committed rape. On raising alarm, Roopa came there where Heera and J.P. were already present and they also gave beating to her. It was also stated that she has sustained injuries during the incident. 16. PW2 Rukma during her examination has stated that when the victim was taking bath at the agriculture fields, the accused appellant committed rape with the victim and on hearing the cry, she and her sister reached on the spot and stated that they saw the accused appellant committing rape and running away. Thereafter, Heera and Roopa came there and gave beating to Kamla. Thereafter, we all the three came back to the house. Similar was the statement of PW5 Manbhar. 17. One of the witnesses namely; PW8 Ram Kishan in his examination has stated that while the victim was taking bath at the fields, on hearing the cry of the victim they reached there and saw that the accused was committing rape with the victim and on seeing them the accused ran away. After that Roopa and Heera Lal came on the spot and gave beating to the victim saying that she is making false allegations against them. 18. As per the medical evidence of PW2 Dr. After that Roopa and Heera Lal came on the spot and gave beating to the victim saying that she is making false allegations against them. 18. As per the medical evidence of PW2 Dr. D.N. Chabariya, who had medically examined the victim, he has stated that on the basis of clinical examination, he is not sure whether the rape was committed on victim or not. As per the medical report of the victim (Ex.P2), no injury was seen on vaginal wall and the hymen is absent. The opinion of the medical examination conducted on 17.10.1989 is as under:- “On clinical grounds the board is of the opinion that nothing is suggestive of the fact that rape has not been done. However, the vaginal swab and smear have been proposed to be sent to the Chemical examination. She is habitual to intercourse.” 19. The medical examination of the accused appellant was also conducted on 18.10.1989 at 11:45 AM and the opinion was given that “since Smegama over the glans is present so recent sexual intercourse has not been performed (within 24 hours). Opinion regarding old sexual intercourse (after 24 hours) cannot be given” and final opinion can only be given after Chemical examination of the clothes etc. 20. As per the medical examination, there are two injuries on the body of the victim which were said to be caused by other accused Roopa and Heera Lal after the incident of rape when they came on the spot and gave beating to the victim. In ordinary course there is no question that a forcible rape is committed in the fields when the victim is without clothes and no injury is sustained by her. The medical examination of the victim as well as the accused do not suggest of any such injury on prosecutorix or on the body of accused suggesting forcible intercourse. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nivas Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 503 has observed in para 4 as under:- “4. The case mainly rested on the evidence of prosecutrix, PW 1. The way she narrated the whole occurrence appears to be highly doubtful and looks as no such rape has taken place. She says that she cried and tried to wriggle out but neither on her nor on the accused any injuries were found. The case mainly rested on the evidence of prosecutrix, PW 1. The way she narrated the whole occurrence appears to be highly doubtful and looks as no such rape has taken place. She says that she cried and tried to wriggle out but neither on her nor on the accused any injuries were found. She further gave so many details as to how the accused is said to have committed rape and she categorically stated that the accused had intercourse fully with her against her will. The doctor who examined her did not find any spermatozoa. The fact that no spermatozoa was found would go to show that no such occurrence had taken place. The doctor, further admitted that he could not give exact opinion whether rape had taken place or not because of the absence of spermatozoa in the smear and since she was married woman for five years her hymen will not be intact. The accused was also examined by a doctor on the next day and doctor did not find any injury suggesting a forcible rape. We need not go into the fact whether it was a case of rape or consent. But we are not prepared to place any reliance on her evidence itself. It is true, that the courts below have accepted her evidence. But to satisfy ourselves we have examined her evidence minutely and the same is highly untrustworthy. In these circumstances we give benefit of doubt to the appellant. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the accused shall be released.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jayantibai Mohanbhai Patel (Padaria) Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2020) 19 SC 347 has acquitted the accused appellant therein observing that the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt taking into consideration the credibility of the victim and the adverse medical report. 23. On consideration of the statement of the victim and other witnesses alleged to be the eye-witnesses, it is found that there is no consistency in their statements about the incident of rape with the victim. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Thimmappa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 475 has also acquitted the accused therein observing that in criminal cases, the rule is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Thimmappa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 475 has also acquitted the accused therein observing that in criminal cases, the rule is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. If the court is of the opinion that on evidence two views are reasonably possible, one that the appellant is guilty, and the other that he is innocent, then the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further in the case of Munna Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 254 has observed in para 11 as under:- “11. Thus, while absence of injuries or absence of raising alarm or delay in FIR may not by itself be enough to disbelieve the version of prosecutrix in view of the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act but if such statement has inherent infirmities, creating doubt about its veracity, the same may not be acted upon. We are conscious of the sensitivity with which heinous offence under Section 376, IPC has to be treated but in the present case the circumstances taken as a whole create doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version. We are, thus, of the opinion that a case is made out for giving benefit of doubt to the accused.” 26. On scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of the victim and the other witnesses alleged to be the eye-witnesses, there is no credibility in their version as their statements are not supporting the version of each other. The medical evidence as discussed above also does not conclusively suggests that the rape was committed on the victim by the accused appellant. Hence, there are two possibilities whether the rape was committed by the appellant on the victim or it is a false allegation. 27. On making scrutiny of the evidence and on consideration of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present accused appellant deserves benefit of doubt and therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant- Ajaypal @ Jaipal for the offence under section 376 IPC is set aside. 28. 27. On making scrutiny of the evidence and on consideration of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present accused appellant deserves benefit of doubt and therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant- Ajaypal @ Jaipal for the offence under section 376 IPC is set aside. 28. As regards the other accused appellants namely; Roopa and Heera Lal in Criminal Appeal No.35/1994 is concerned, the allegations against them are in regard to giving beating to the victim (PW3). As per the medical evidence, the victim has sustained two injuries on her body and the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under section 323 IPC and sentenced with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine they have been directed to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. 29. Victim (PW3) has stated in the examination that accused Roopa and Heera gave beating to her. The other witnesses namely PW5 Smt. Manbhar, PW4 Rukma in categorical words have supported the said allegations. The statement of the witness PW2- Dr. D.N. Chabariya also shows that the victim has sustained two injuries- both bruises; one on the right side of back and other on the right capital region. 30. It seems that the allegations of rape against co-accused Ajaypal @ Jaipal have been leveled only because of the incident of beating with the victim by the accused Heera Lal and Roopa. 31. On consideration of the evidence available on the record, I find no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the trial court in regard to conviction of the accused appellants namely; Roopa and Heera Lal for the offence under section 323 IPC and thus same is maintained. 32. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal (No. 500/1993) of accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal is allowed and his conviction for the offence under section 376 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted from the aforesaid charge. The accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. 33. 32. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal (No. 500/1993) of accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal is allowed and his conviction for the offence under section 376 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted from the aforesaid charge. The accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. 33. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused appellant Ajaypal @ Jaipal is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this 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 this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice therefore, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 34. The criminal appeal (No.35/1994) of the accused appellants namely; Roopa & Heera Lal is dismissed and they will have to deposit the amount of fine as directed by the trial court, if not deposited so far, failing which they will have to suffer the sentence as per the judgment of the trial court. 35. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send back the record of the case to the trial court forthwith.