The court established that inconsistent narratives and a lack of medical evidence undermine allegations of sexual assault, leading to the appellant's acquittal based on the principle of benefit of doubt.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.1.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (MP) in S.T.No.290/98 convicting the accused / appellant under S.376(1), S.506 Part - II & 346 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for seven years, to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-; to undergo RI for two years, to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; and to undergo RI for two years, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9-7-1998 at 1 p.m. FIR (Ex.P / 1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW - 1), aged about 20 years, alleging therein that on the previous night at about 8 p.m. when she was returning to her house, which was on the first floor, from the house of her maternal uncle, which was on the ground floor, the accused / appellant forcibly took her to his house after dragging her about 100 meters and there he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her twice. At about 4 a.m. the accused / appellant left his house after locking her inside the house. When she raised alarm, her brother came from the back door of the house of the accused / appellant and then she opened the door and narrated the entire incident to her family members. Based on this FIR, offences under S.376, S.342 & S.506 - B of IPC were registered against the accused / appellant. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 9.7.1998 by PW - 12 Dr. Kalavati Patel vide Ex.P / IIA wherein she has mentioned that there was no external or internal injury on the person of the prosecutrix, she was habitual to sexual intercourse and there was no sign of rape on her body. On 10.7.1998 the accused / appellant was also medically examined by PW - 11 Dr. A.K. Sharma vide Ex.P / 15A in which he opined that the accused / appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. After investigation, charge - sheet was filed against the accused / appellant for the offence under S.376, S.342, S.506 - B of IPC. However, the trial Court framed charges under S.346, S.376(1) and S.506 Part - ll of IPC against him.

3. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused / appellant was recorded under S.313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant as mentioned in para - 1 of this judgment.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is as under:
(i) that about five years prior to the date of incident the prosecutrix was married to one Biharilal who is resident of another village but as her husband was mentally disturbed, she left his house and started residing with her parents. On the date of incident, her husband and mother - in - law had come to her house to take her and it appears that as she was not interested to go with them, she stayed with the accused / appellant in the night in his house and when this fact was known to the people residing in the vicinity, they offered face - saving excuse, made the accused / appellant scape - goat and lodged a false report against him;
(ii) that a very improbable story has been put forth by the prosecutrix, according to her throughout the night she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused / appellant, however, she did not raise any hue and cry for help when she herself admits that her mouth was not gagged at any point of time and that the house of the accused / appellant is surrounde