The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to alter or amend a charge based on the evidence presented, as well as the importance of corroborating evidence and medical examination reports in cases of alleged rape.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-11-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali whereby he convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default payment whereof to further undergo one months simple imprisonment.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case are that a first information report was lodged in a police Station Kerla",. District Pali on the basis of parcha bayan of one Dhanna S/o ganesh Ji by caste Gurjar, resident of chatra Ki Bhakhari, at 10:15 a. m. on 20-7-1985 who along with his sister Sua aged 12 years appeared before SHO on 20 7-1985. It was alleged that at 12 in the noon of that day his sister Sua had taken their cattle for grazing towards Kharda Dam. She came back to her house at 4. 00 p. m. At that time she was crying and her blouse was torn apart. On inquiry she told that while she was with the grazing cattle near Kharda dam, Kailash S/o Narayan by caste Gurjar came there around 1. 30 p. m. , he forcibly caught her and forced her to lie down on the ground. He set upon her body and committed rape upon her. She tried to free herself from the clutches of Kailash but he overpowered her and torn her blouse and also rubbed her brest. When Sua raised hue and cry, Teja S/o Sadul by caste Gurjar came there, Kailash run away from there.

( 3 ) ON the basis of said parcha bayan a first Information Report foroffence under section 376 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Challan against the accused-appellant was filed for offence under sections 376 and 354, 342 and 323 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. Number of documents were also exhibited by the prosecution. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Pali convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him as afore-stated.

( 4 ) I have heard Shri Suresh Kumbhat learned amicus curiae and Shri Rameshwar dave, learned Public Prosecutor and pe-rused the record.

( 5 ) LEARNED amicus curiae argued that there was no evidence that rape was committed upon Mst. Sua. In fact Mst. Sua was sister-in-law of the accused-appellant. Her sister Mst. Kali was married to him, whose parents wanted to give her in nata (second marriage) to someone and were not sending her to appellant. On account of this, the appellant was falsely implicated in the criminal case. He argued that prosecutrix Mst. Sua who has been examined as PW-2, has admitted this fact in her cross-examination that Mst. Kali is daughter of his maternal uncle and Kalis mother had accompanied her to the Police Station when they went to lodge report against the accused-appellant. She also stated that the accused-appellant had snatched her meal in the jungle and on this quarrel had taken place between them. It was a simple incident of manhandling by the accused with the prosecutrix which has been blown out of the proportion with the sheer purpose of falsely implicating the appellant for offence of rape. The learned amicus curiae has invited my attention to the statement of PW-8 Teja Ram where he states that an altercation has taken place between the appellant and the prosecutrix and he had seen them quarrelling with each other and he did not see torn blouse of prosecutrix and also did not see the appellant committing rape upon her. Learned amicus curiae has relied upon the report of the Medical Board and also the statement of one of its members, Dr. Labh Chand Joshi, who was posted as Medical Jurist in Bangar Hospital, Pali and was examined as PW-7. With the help of the report of Medical Board Exhibit-P/12 and the statement of PW-7, the learned amicus curiae argued that Medical. Board has opined that no sexual intercourse was performed with the prosecutrix inasmuch as there were no injuries on her private parts, thighs, breasts, cheeks, abdomen or back of body. In the face of this, convi