ORDER : 1. The appellant is the sole accused convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW-4, being the prosecutrix, is totally unbelievable. She has not raised any protest when she was taken to the place of occurrence which was an unoccupied house situated more than one kilometer away from her house. Therefore, her statement, that she went out of the house to relieve herself cannot be believed. The usage of ‘Modak’, which is commonly used by the villagers, will not create intoxication to the extent of losing one’s balance after it is consumed. PW-4 herself has stated that after the occurrence, the appellant stayed there for nearly two hours, in which case she was conscious. She did not leave the place thereafter and only at about 12 a.m. at midnight, she regained her consciousness and was found near a grove of guava trees by her brother-in-law and her father-in-law, who has been arrayed as PW-2. The brother-in-law of the prosecutrix has not been examined. 3. It is her further evidence that there was a Panchayat held after the occurrence by which a fine was imposed on the appellant. However, no member of the Panchayat was examined. In fact, one person, arrayed as DW-1, was examined on behalf of the appellant to show that no such Panchayat had ever taken place, which was disbelieved by the Court without even the prosecution proving the conduct of the said meeting. Therefore, there has been considerable delay in lodging of the First Information Report for the occurrence which was said to have taken on 08.07.1989, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 10.07.1989. 4. Thus, it is submitted that the entire story of the prosecution, therefore, is not believable, especially, when the doctor, who is the author of the medical report has not been examined and the said report has also not been marked as an exhibit. The examination was done only on 10.07.1989 and even the medical report suggested that there was no clear evidence of any sexual assault. In such view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the High Court confirming that of the Trial Court requires interference. 5. The examination was done only on 10.07.1989 and even the medical report suggested that there was no clear evidence of any sexual assault. In such view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the High Court confirming that of the Trial Court requires interference. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that this Court will have to give due importance to the statement of the prosecutrix, whose evidence will have to be placed above an injured witness. There is no motive on the part of the prosecutrix to implicate the appellant. As both the Courts below have considered the evidence in the correct perspective, there is no need for interference and that too in the absence of any perversity. 6. We have perused the evidence of PW-4 who is none other than the prosecutrix. Suffice it is to state that a conviction cannot be rendered on that basis alone. It is her evidence that she came out of her house to relieve herself. She was taken to a place which was situated one kilometer away from her house by the appellant. It is rather strange that she did not raise any protest at that point of time by shouting. She started shouting only when she was administered the ‘Modak’ by the appellant. She felt uncomfortable immediately after taking it, during which time, the appellant committed the offence. She was conscious even thereafter. That is the reason why she made a statement that the appellant was with her for nearly two hours after the occurrence. Thereafter, she regained her consciousness and was moving around. At about 12 a.m. in the midnight, her family member, namely, the younger brother of her husband and her father-in-law who has been arrayed as PW 2, found her in a grove of guava trees and took her into their house. The brother-in-law of PW-4 was not examined. Nobody from the Panchayat was examined. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved that the occurrence was reported to the Panchayat and that they had imposed a fine on the appellant. In any case, PW-4 has deposed that on the failure of the appellant to deposit the said amount, the complaint was lodged by them. The medical report, though not marked as an exhibit by the medical examiner who is the author, also stated that the sexual assault on the prosecutrix cannot be ascertained. In any case, PW-4 has deposed that on the failure of the appellant to deposit the said amount, the complaint was lodged by them. The medical report, though not marked as an exhibit by the medical examiner who is the author, also stated that the sexual assault on the prosecutrix cannot be ascertained. The report further suggested that there were no external or internal injuries found on PW-4. All these factors make us believe that the case, at best, might be a case of consensual relationship turning sour thereafter. Suffice it is to state that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant as we find that both the Courts have not considered the evidence on record in the correct perspective. 8. Thus, the appeal is allowed accordingly. The conviction rendered against the appellant stands set aside. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.