Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th November 1989 delivered by Shri K. L. Kori, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Case No. 212/1987 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376, 1PC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the appellant was working as teacher at the Middle School for girls in Labhandih. The prosecutrix aged about 13 years was studying in Class VI. On 9-8-1986 at 2.45 p.m. she lodged FIR Ex. 3 at P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur stating that on 8-8-1986 at about 5.00 p.m. the appellant hid her school bag in his room. When she asked for it, the appellant told her to get it from the room. As the prosecutrix went to the room, the appellant followed her to the room and holding her hands started fondling her and kissing her cheeks. She resisted but the appellant scolded her to keep quiet. Thereafter, the appellant after undressing her completely, undressed himself and closing the door made the prosecutrix to lie on the ground and mounting upon her completed the sexual act and ejaculated the semen. When the appellant penetrated his penis inside the vaginal orifice of the prosecutrix, she experienced severe pain and shouted. The appellant gagged her mouth. After completing the sexual act, he cleaned his penis with his handkerchief. The prosecutrix also narrated that: due to the forceful intercourse by the appellant she was experiencing severe pain in her private parts. After completion of the act, the appellant gave the school bag to her and warned her not to disclose the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix returned home and told the incident to her mother Rupoutin Bai P.W. 5. She stated that due to fear she did not narrate the incident to anybody else. Rupoutin Bai P.W. 5 informed her husband Devnath P.W. 8 at night about the incident.
3. On the same day, i.e. 9-8-1986 Dr. Asha Mishra P.W. 10 examined the prosecutrix and found that she had no difficulty in defecation, maturation (sic) and walking. Menses had not started. Her secondary sexual characters were very well developed. There was no external injury anywhere on her body. On examination of her private parts, there was no evidence of any injury. Her vaginal examination did not disclose any discharge or bleeding. There was no sign of redness or inflammation. Hymen was intact. Matting of pubic hair had not taken place. Her vaginal examination did not reveal any bleeding on the examining finger. It was opined that as hymen was intact and there was no evidence of trauma to the private parts and since there was no external injury on the prosecutrix, no definite opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse. Vaginal slides were prepared, sealed and were handed over to Constable and were seized vide Ex. P.7.
4. The appellant was examined on 9-8-1986 by Dr. P. L. Yadu P.W. 1. It was opined that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. There was no injury anywhere on his body. No matting of hair over lower abdomen and thighs and private parts was noticed. One nylon underwear was seized from the prosecutrix on 9-8-1986 vide Ex. P.4. One full pant, one white terricot shirt and one polyester handkerchief and one underwear were seized from the appellant on 9-8-1986 vide Ex. P. 6. Vide Ex. P.12 the vaginal slides, underwear of the prosecutrix and the appellant and handkerchief were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory which confirmed the presence of blood and human spermatozoa and seminal stains on all the articles vide report Ex. P. 13. However, the stains being disintegrated could not be subjected to serological examination. One love letter Ex. P. 7 was seized vide Ex. P8 from Smt. Urmila J. Lal P.W. 11, Headmistress of the school on 9-8-1986. After completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted under Section 376 of the IPC.
5. The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded false implication due to enmity with Vishwanath P.W. 7, another teacher in the school. No evidence was led in defence.
6. Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the conviction of the appellant on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR Ex. P.3. Reliance was placed on Ram Jog v. The State of U.P. : 1974CriLJ479 while contending that in the facts and circumstances of the case, delay though not very long throws a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case. It was also argued that the absence of any injury either externally or on the private parts of the pros-ecutrix rendered the testimony of the pros-ecutrix wholly unworthy of credit. Reliance was placed on Dilip v. State of M.P. : 2001CriLJ4721 . It was also contended that the appellant was falsely implicated at the behest of teacher Vishwanath P.W. 7. Lastly, it was urged that the conduct of the prosecutrix in going to the school normally on the second day and the presence of Vishwanath P.W. 7 throughout till FIR Ex. P3 was lodged clearly revealed that the appellant was falsely implicated. It was argued that the 'probabilities-factor' pointed to the innocence of the appellant. So far as the report of FSL Ex P. 13 was concerned, it was argued that there was no evidence to show that vaginal slides of the prosecutrix were prepared by Dr. Asha Mishra P.W. 10. It was also urged that since the stains found on the underwear of the appellant and the prosecutrix and on the handkerchief were not subjected to serologi-cal examination, their origin could not be proved. Reliance was placed on Rahim Beg v. The State of U.P. : 1972CriLJ1260 while contending that in view of the long and forceful intercourse alleged by the prosecutrix, absence of any injuries on the male organ of the appellant coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix was a virgin pointed to the innocence of the appellant. The appellant could also not, therefore, be convicted under Section 376, IPC on the basis of report of the FSL.
7. On the other hand, Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Government Advocate while arguing in support of the impugned judgment placed heavy reliance on Bharwada Bhoglnbai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat : 1983CriLJ1096 while contending that the defence of false implication at the behest of Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 was liable for rejection in totality since in a tradition bound society, particularly in a rural area, the parents of a minor girl would not bring disrepute not only to their daughter but also to the family at the behest of another teacher. It was also argued that even though it was not established that human spermatozoa found on the undergarment of the prosecutrix was that of accused, yet the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix that the entire incident was narrated to her immediately by the prosecutrix on arriving home was also a corroborative peace of evidence and conviction of the appellant thereupon was well founded. Reliance was also placed on Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1998 SC 386 : 1998 Cri LJ 667. Placing reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharkole alias Govind Singh 2005 Cri LJ 108 it was urged that although the medical evidence did not corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix in any manner, yet it was not to be given primacy over ocular evidence of the prosecutrix and a conviction could be based on her testimony.
8. Having heard the rival contentions, I have gone through the record. I have also minutely perused the case law cited. A perusal of the FIR Ex. P.1 lodged by the prosecutrix does not show that it has been narrated by a 13 year old virgin girl who is bashful i.e. uneasy in the presence of strangers. The same picture is depicted in her testimony since she deposed an exaggerated version of rape which did not find place in the FIR. The prosecutrix P.W. 4 deposed that the appellant had snatched her school bag and hid it somewhere. On being demanded, the appellant asked her to get the bag from the school room. As she went to the school room, the appellant followed her inside the room and closed the door. Thereafter, the appellant snatched the bag from her hand, undressed himself completely and thereafter removed her skirt, shirt and underwear. After making her lie on the floor, the appellant mounted on her and lifting both her feet placed them on his shoulders and committed sexual intercourse with her and also pressed her breasts. During the sexual intercourse, when she attempted to shout the appellant gagged her mouth by his handkerchief. After committing rape on her, the appellant dressed himself but she could not do so and was lying unconscious for two hours. The appellant remained there during this period. After she regained consciousness, she wore her clothes and taking her school bag started for home. On way, she washed the blood stains on her underwear in a canal. On reaching home, she narrated the incident to her mother Rupoutin Bai P.W. 5 who informed Devnath P.W. 8, her father. On the next day, not being afraid of anything, she went to the school as per normal routine and was attending the class. Her father came to the school with teacher Vishwanath P.W. 7 who asked her to accompany them to the Police Station. Thereafter, she lodged FIR Ex. P.3 at the Police Station. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR she did not narrate that the appellant had immediately on entering the room, bolted the door from inside. She also did not state in the FIR that the appellant had lifted both her feet and placed them on his shoulders and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. It was also not mentioned that her breasts were pressed or that her mouth was gagged with the handkerchief of the appellant. The duration of rape as also the fact that she remained unconscious for two hours in a naked condition, was also omitted in FIR.
9. It is settled law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecu-trix, if it inspires confidence and is worthy of credit. In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Harjibhai 1983 Cri LJ 1096 (supra), the Apex Court has held that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, (italics provided by me) where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. In the case cited above, the medical examination of the prosecutrix had disclosed that there was evidence to show that an attempt to commit rape on the prosecutrix had been made few days back. It was a case under Section 376 read with Section 511, IPC. In this case, the facts and circumstances are completely different. The prosecutrix has described the manner in which she was violently raped by the appellant in the FIR Ex. P1 and also in her testimony. In paragraph 10, the prosecutrix, stated that her bangles had broken since the appellant had caught hold of her wrist with force. She further deposed that due to the sexual assault after being undressed and being made to lie on the ground she had sustained injury at the back of her head, hand and back. Her entire body had scratches and blood was oozing therefrom. According to her, the appellant committed sexual act for about half an hour to one hour due to which blood oozed from her vagina and had stained the floor. She offered resistance during the sexual act by moving her feet due to which she had sustained injury in the ankle and blood had oozed therefrom. Under these circumstances, medical evidence is expected to be forthcoming to corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix who is said to have sustained injuries all over the body and also bleeding from her private parts staining her body as also the clothes which she was wearing. This part of the testimony is not only not corroborated by the medical evidence but is rather belied thereby. The presence of blood stains on her private parts is not confirmed. The report of Dr. Smt. Asha Mishra P.W. 10 has been dealt with in details in paragraph 2 (supra) which clearly leads to an irresistible inference that the above testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be relied on. In this regard, reliance is placed on Dilip v. State of M.P. : 2001CriLJ4721 .
10. The testimony of Sub-Inspector Anup Chand Rathore P.W. 13 clearly shows that the prosecutrix, at the time of lodging FIR Ex. P.3, did not mention that she had sustained any injury anywhere on her body. He has also stated in paragraph 24 that upon spot inspection he did not find any bloodstains on the floor of the room, where rape was alleged to have been committed. The testimony of the prosecutrix that she asked for her school bag at about 5.00 p.m. and thereafter inside the room the appellant committed rape on her for about half an hour to one hour and she remained unconscious for two hours is wholly unreliable since Rupoutin P.W. 5 has in para 1 clearly stated that he prosecutrix had returned home at about 5.00 p.m. In cross-examination para 3, she has changed her version by stating that the prosecutrix had returned home at about 6.00 p.m. Be that as it may, corroboration by medical evidence not forthcoming the testimony of the prosecutrix relating to the duration of rape and the period over which she remained unconscious and also the injuries sustained by her is rendered unreliable. Her testimony that her bangles had broken is also not worthy of credit because during spot inspection no such bangles were found or seized by Sub-Inspector Anup Chand Rathore. Considering the 'probabilities factor', if the prosecutrix had been subjected to rape by the appellant and she had sustained injuries in the manner narrated by her and her parents were informed by the prosecutrix on the same day, it would also be absolutely unnatural for the prosecutrix to have gone to the school the very next day as a normal routine, as if no incident of rape on her had taken place.
11. Sukhchand Bharti P.W. 3, Sarpanch of Labhandih, has stated that he was called at the school on the next day after the occurrence and 4-5 persons from village Pirda and the appellant were present. It was complained by the villagers that the appellant used to apply chalk on the cheeks of the prosecutrix and also used to touch her. It was also informed that the appellant had detained the prosecutrix at the school. Upon this, the villagers went to the Police Station and lodged a report of rape against the appellant. In his testimony, it does not appear that on the next day after occurrence and before lodging the FIR any allegation of rape was levelled against the appellant. He has admitted that Sahu master also taught at the same school. Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 has categorically stated that next day i.e. 9-8-1986 the villagers of Pirda had complained to the Headmistress about the rape committed by the appellant on the prosecutrix. However, Smt. Urmila J. Lal P.W. 11 has in her entire testimony not uttered a word to show that any such complaint was made to her by the villagers of Pirda. On the other hand, she has categorically stated in paragraph 5 of her testimony that the prosecutrix, her father or the persons accompanying him never complained anything against the appellant. This also renders the testimony of the prosecutrix unworthy of credit, considering the 'probabilities-factor'.
12. The prosecutrix has testified that she had informed about the incident to her mother and not to her father. Rupoutin Bai P.W. 5 also stated that she had informed about the incident to her husband Devnath P.W. 8. However, on being specifically asked by the prosecutrix, Devnath P.W. 8 clearly stated that the prosecutrix, had given the first hand information about the incident to him. Thereafter, his wife had informed him about the incident. It is worthwhile reproducing what Devnath P.W. 8 had to testify in this regard:
I returned from the field at about 8.00 p.m. My daughter Hemlata told me that the teacher in the school had teased her whereupon I told about it to Nandas, Paroudas and Shyamratan. On the second day, about 7.00 a.m. I along with Shyamratan, Paraudas and Namdas reached Labhandih School and advised to the accused who said such things cannot happen, why do you talk so filthily. At that time, Hemlata was also accompanying us. Taking the girl from the school, we reached the Telibondha Chowki at about 10.00 a.m. from there we were taken to the Civil Lines Police Station. We reached at 1.00 p.m. at the Civil Lines Police Station andI lodged report there (Italics provided by me). On being specifically asked as to how the girl was teased, the witness stated that the teacher held her hand. On being asked if the mother of the girl or your wife had told you about the incident, the witness stated that first of all, the girl narrated the incident to me and thereafter her mother told me that the girl had told her that the accused had, after making her naked did Bura Kaam.
13. It is pertinent to note that in his testimony Devnath P.W. 8 did not state that his daughter Hemlata had told him that the teacher did Bura Kaam with her. Namdas, Paroudas and Shyamratan to whom the incident was immediately informed by Devnath and who are alleged to have accompanied Devnath to the school on the next day were not examined by the prosecution. As stated earlier, the manner in which the first information report was narrated does not disclose that it came from the mouth of a bashful 13 year old minor virgin girl. The admission by Devnath P.W. 8 in paragraph 4 clearly explains that he had lodged the FIR meaning thereby that the report Ex. D.3 was written at his narration and was got signed by the prosecutrix.
14. The prosecutrix had admitted in paragraph 18 that Vishwanath Sahu is her neighbour and they were on visiting terms. She also admitted that she had not narrated the manner in which the appellant had committed rape on her, as described in paragraph 8 (supra) to the police at the time of lodging the FIR. She also admitted that Vishwanath Sahu had accompanied her further to the school on the next day and had asked her to accompany them to the Police Station. Rupoutln P.W. 5, the mother of the prosecutrix has stated in paragraph 5 that Devnath P.W. 8 had asked the prosecutrix to go to the school and told her that he would come to the school and take her from there to the Police Station. She admitted that her husband Devnath P.W. 8 and teacher Vishwanath P.W. 7 had gone together from the village for lodging the FIR. This clearly establishes that while the prosecutrix went to attend the school normally on the next day Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 accompanied by Devnath P.W. 8 went to the school and asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to the Police Station. However, Devnath P.W. 8 has suppressed this fact by stating that Vishwanath had not accompanied him from village to the school but had met him at the school on the next morning and at that time he had narrated the incident to Vishwanath. In paragraph 6 he has also stated that the prosecutrix had accompanied him from the village to the school. It is beyond comprehension as to why Devnath P.W. 8 had gone to the school if the prosecutrix had accompanied him from the village as he would have straightway gone to the Police Station. He has suppressed that Vishwanath Sahu had accompanied him to the Police Station. Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 also deliberately suppressed this fact in paragraph 10. Thus, there is a serious contradiction in the testi-mony of the prosecutrix P.W. 4 and Rupoutin P.W. 5 on one hand and the testimony of Devnath P.W. 8 and Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 on the other hand which smacks of concoction. To reiterate, if rape had been committed on the prosecutrix as alleged by her on 8-8-1986 and she had sustained injuries all over her body and also had sustained bleeding from her private parts, she would not have gone to the school the very next day as a normal routine. The very fact that she went to the school as a normal routine on the next day and the fact that Devnath P.W. 8 accompanied by teacher Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 started from the village and went to the school where Vishwanath asked the prosecutrix to accompany them to the Police Station where Devnath P.W. 8 narrated the FIR Ex. P.3 unfolds the truth and does not rule out the possibility that at the behest of Vishwanath P.W. 7, the FIR Ex. P3 was concocted by Devnath P.W. 8. To reiterate this is also fortified by the medical evidence which wholly contradicts the testimony of the prosecutrix not only about rape but also about injuries alleged to have been sustained by her during the sexual intercourse.
15. It is true that normally no parents would like to bring shame to their minor daughter at the behest of another teacher but human nature is very strange and complex. A recent case in which a daughter had lodged the report of rape against the stepfather and after the conviction of the stepfather for rape was upheld by the Apex Court submitted an affidavit that she lodged a false report at the behest of her mother has also come to notice. It cannot, therefore, be laid down as a general rule that whatever the prosecutrix disposed has to be accepted as a gospel truth because her parents would not lodge a false report of rape at the behest of another person who sought vengeance from the appellant. Therefore, the touchstone for recording a conviction in a rape case is that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and inspires confidence and should be worthy of credit. It should not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities-factor' should also not render it unworthy of credence. As stated earlier, the medical evidence which is expected to be forthcoming wholly contradicts and bellies the testimony of the prosecutrix. The testimony of Sukhchand Bhati P.W. 3 and Headmistress Smt, Urmila J. Lal P.W. 11 also contradicts the testimony of the prosecutrix in its totality. The testimony of Devnath P.W. 8 reproduced above also throws a cloud of suspicion whether rape was committed by the appellant on the prosecutrix. These strengthen the 'probabilities-factors' in the facts and circumstances of the case and point to the innocence of the appellant.'
16. So far as the report of the F.S.L. Ex. P. 13 is concerned, it is of no avail to the prosecution since Dr. Smt. Asha Mishra P.W. 10 did not testify that she had prepared vaginal slides after the examination of the pros-ecutrix. The report of the F.S.L. does not inspire confidence because even on the handkerchief by which the appellant is alleged to have gagged the mouth of the pros-ecutrix while she shouted during the rape was opined to be stained with semen, human spermatozoa and human blood which could not be possible at all. The prosecutrix did not depose that the appellant had cleaned his male organ with his handkerchief after the sexual act. It is highly improbable that the appellant would be carrying such a handkerchief in his pocket two days after the incident. The report of the F.S.L. is also rendered unreliable in view of the fact that the prosecutrix and Rupoutin P.W. 5 have stated that the prosecutrix had washed her underwear in the canal on her way. The testimony of Constable Vishnu Prasad Verma P.W. 2 also does not show that the vaginal slides belonged to the prosecutrix. In this manner, the presence of blood and spermatozoa and semen on the vaginal slides, as per report Ex. P. 13, is of no avail to the prosecution. The fact that the stains on the vaginal slides as well as the underwear and handkerchief were disintegrated and were not found sufficient for serologi-cal examination also shows that the prosecution has failed to establish the origin of blood and seminal stains.
17. Sub-Inspector Anup Chand Rathore P.W. 13 has in cross-examination paragraph 8 admitted that one Revti Bai studying in the same school had also lodged a similar report of indecent behaviour by the appellant herein on 9-8-1986 at about 7.00 p.m. Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 has admitted that Revti Bai is the daughter of his cousin. The presence of Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 at the Police Station on 9-8-1986 is borne out from the evidence of prosecutrix though an attempt has been made to suppress it. How is that on 9-8-1986 two reports are lodged by girls one of whom is a relative of Vishwanath Sahu and another is the daughter of a very close neighbour with whom he has visiting terms? How is that the incident dated 7-8-1986 with Revti Bai was also reported after considerable delay on 9-8-1986 after the report was lodged by the prosecutrix in this case ?
18. So far as the seizure of love letter Ex. P7 vide Ex. P.8 from Headmistress Smt. Urmila J. Lal is concerned, it is pertinent to note that Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 is again a witness of this seizure memo. No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that this letter was written by the appellant. The girl to whom this letter is alleged to have been written by the appellant has neither been cited nor examined by the prosecution. Thus, the over indulgence of Vishwanath Sahu in this matter further strengthens the 'probabilities-factor' that the appellant has been falsely roped in.
19. The prosecutrix has categorically stated in paragraph 8 of her testimony that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her in the class-room of Class-VIII. However, the spot map Ex. P11 prepared by Deepak Lal Sahu P.W. 12 clearly belies her testimony since therein it was shown that the sexual intercourse was not committed in the class room of Class-VIII but was committed in the office room of the school. This also creates a serious dent in the testimony of the prosecutrix.
20. If the testimony of the virgin prosecutrix regarding the violent manner in and the duration for which the appellant committed rape on her is to be accepted, it cannot be ruled out that the appellant would have definitely sustained some injury on his male organ. Dr. P. L. Yadu P.W. 1 who had examined the appellant on 9-8-1986 did not state that there was any injury on the male organ of the appellant. This also weakens the testimony of the prosecutrix.
21. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, the following points emerge:
(a) The testimony of the prosecutrix that after making her naked the appellant raped her for half an hour to one hour and in that process blood oozed from her private parts and she sustained injuries all over her body and that her bangles had broken and the floor had stains of blood is rendered wholly unreliable in view of the medical evidence and the testimony of Sub-Inspector Anup Chand Rathore P.W. 13.
(b) The report of F.S.L. Ex. P. 13 does not establish the origin of the blood or seminal stains.
(c) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the prosecutrix in going to the school on the next day as a natural routine coupled with the fact that Devnath P.W. 8 had gone to the school with Vishwanath Sahu does not rule out the possibility that at the behest of Vishwanath P.W. 7, the FIR was concocted.
(d) The medical opinion about absence of any injury, external or internal on the virgin prosecutrix aged 13 years and the fact that the hymen was intact and the absence of any injuries on the penis of the appellant clearly negatives the story of rape for half an hour to one hour by the appellant, as narrated by her.
(e) The testimony of Sukhchand Bharti P.W. 3 coupled with testimony of the prosecutrix and Rupoutin P.W. 5 hints at concoction at the behest of Vishwanath Sahu P.W. 7 and Devnath P.W. 8. Vishwanath Sahu had deliberately suppressed the fact that he had accompanied Devnath to the school on the next day. It cannot be ruled out that the prosecutrix went to the school normally on 9-8-1986. In the meanwhile at the behest of Vishwanath, Devnath P.W. 8 agreed to lodge a false report of rape against the appellant and thereafter both of them went to the school to take the prosecutrix with them to the Police Station. At the Police Station Devnath P.W. 8 narrated the report.
(f) The testimony of Sub-Inspector Anup Chand Rathore P.W. 13 clearly shows that the prosecutrix had not narrated to him either about the manner and duration for which she alleged in her testimony to have been raped by the appellant or about the injuries sustained by her.
(g) The testimony of the prosecutrix regarding the place where rape was committed on her by the appellant is contradicted and belied by the testimony of Deepak Lal Sahu P.W. 12 who had prepared spot map.
(h) The testimony of the prosecutrix is also rendered doubtful as it is contradicted by Smt. Urmila J. Lal P.W.11, the Headmistress of the school.
(i) The absence of any injury on the male organ of the appellant also renders the story of a violent rape by the appellant for duration of half an hour to one hour with the prosecutrix, unworthy of credit.
(j) The testimony of Devnath P.W. 8 that on returning from the school, the prosecu-trix had not told him that the appellant had done Bura Kaam with her but had merely told him that the teacher had teased her by holding her hands also renders the story of rape by the appellant unreliable.
In view of the aforesaid facts emerging from the evidence on record, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376, IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder by the trial Court cannot be sustained. The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
22. In the result this appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 376, IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The appellant is acquitted. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled forthwith.