In criminal trials, when medical evidence fails to corroborate the prosecution's claims and witness testimonies contain material contradictions, the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof. In such instances, potential for a plausible alternative view mandates that the appellate court grant the benefit of doubt to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashwini Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief appeared for the appellants and Sri Chandra Badan, learned counsel for the State.

THE APPEAL :-

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC has been preferred by the three accused/appellants, namely, Hetram son of Shri Dhar, Shanker son of Shibba and Bhudat son of Chetram in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 1983 (State Vs. Hetram & others), on being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentenced dated 08.05.1984, wherein all the three accused/appellants were convicted for offence of rape and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof further six months rigorous imprisonment.

THE PROSECUTION CASE AND TRIAL :-

3. The prosecution case disclosed in the written information Ex.Ka-1 is such that on 09.05.1983 at about 2:00 p.m., the informant-Baso son of Nathi, r/o Bharna, who belongs to the scheduled caste is the only family of Scheduled Caste in the village, wherein the village is of Haivasi and Brahmins Caste, came to his house along with his nephew (bhanja) Banwari Lal (scribe of the written information) son of Giriraj Prasad and Lajja son of Peeti r/o of village Gajipur. They met him at Saahar Canal, where he was grazing the goat. On reaching the house, he found that the house was bolted from inside, he jumped the boundary wall and opened the door and came inside, He saw Hetram, Shanker and Bhudat ran away after opening the door. His wife (prosecutrix) has informed him while crying that she has been raped. This incident has been witnessed by him and his friends and they have also identified the accused/appellants. He was not let to go out but somehow managed by hiding himself to reach the police station. He is afraid of his life and property.

4. This FIR is lodged on 14.05.1983 at Police Station Barsana, District Mathura in Case Crime No. 32 of 1983. The victim was medically examined on 15.05.1983 at Mahila Chikitsalaya, Mathura at 4:35 p.m., wherein it is disclosed that she is 26-28 weeks pregnant. The vaginal smear was taken for pathological examination. The supplementary report dated 19.05.1983 provides that no sperm seen, the age of lady is about 18 years. The pathological report reveals that she is seven months pregnant but not in labour pain and no definite opinion could be given.

5. The investigation of the case has been carried out by PW-4 Balbeer Singh, who has submitted the charge sheet on 31.05.1983 against the three accused.

6. The charge has been framed on 08.12.1983 against the accused/appellants for committing rape. The prosecution has produced four witnesses, three witnesses of fact, namely, PW-1/Baso (informant); PW-2/prosecutrix; and PW-3/ Banwari Lal (the scribe of written information), who has also witnessed that the accused/applicant have sprinted away from the house. The formal witness/ PW-4 Balbeer Singh was produced, who is the Investigating Officer and has proved the FIR, G.D., site plan and the charge sheet. The accused/applicants have admitted the medico legal report and supplementary medical report.

7. In the statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused/appellants denied having committed rape on the prosecutrix. They submits that they are the neighbours of the informant. Hetram and Shanker have stated that the goats of informant had entered into the field of accused/appellants and damaged the crops, due to which the accused/appellant had beaten the informant, who in retaliation has lodged the f