Savita d/o Narhari Jaware is the resident of village Antri.She has a maternal aunt by name Sou.Police Patil of the said village is PW-7 Ganpat Devman Mahajan.On the day of incident i.e. on 12-11-1987, prosecutrix Ku.Savita, was asked to go to the field of her father at Antri to protect the crops.At that time she was aged about 16 years.The time was about 7 a.m. Her father had gone to village Motala.Her mother had gone to the other field.Prosecutrix went to the said field known as "Ambewali" field with a dog.When she reached to the field, it was at about 7.30 a.m. She tied her dog to Beri tree and she sat below the Bel tree.She started reading 'Gajanan Stotra', as it was her fast day.There was standing crop of cotton in the field.It is alleged that accused No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 1 - Rameshwar Shridhar Jaware, who was aged about 22 years, came in the field.He asked her whether there was anybody in the field.She told that she was alone.Thereafter accused No. 2 i.e. Respondent No. 2 - Eknath Onkar Jaware, aged about 21 years also came to the field.He told that his bullocks had entered in the standing crops of cotton in her field, so he was going to catch the bullocks.All of a sudden, respondent No. 1 caught hold her hands and dragged her towards the standing crops of cotton.She was crying and questioning him as to why she was being dragged.At that time Respondent No. 2 came running there.They both, then, dragged her despite her resistance.They took her to the crops of cotton.They made her to lie down forcibly.Respondent No. 2 by his both hands pressed her mouth and put his leg on her neck.He pressed her breast.Respondent No. 1 removed her inner pant by lifting Maxi.Respondent No. 1 also removed his inner pant and he committed forcible intercourse with her, She suffered severe pain.Respondent No. 1 threatened her for not telling about the incident to anybody, He also threatened her saying that if she tells about the incident to anybody, it would not be good.There was bleeding.According to her, respondent No. 1 had committed rape on her by penetrating his penis into her vagina.Because of this, she had suffered severe pain.It is alleged that there were stains of blood and semen on her Maxi & inner pant.She went to her house weeping along with her dog.Her elder sister Manda, PW-8 was there.She narrated the incident to her on her questioning as to why she was weeping.Thereafter her mother who had gone to 'Tikkewali' field and her father who had gone to Motala, were called.It is alleged that, at the relevant time i.e. while committing the offence, respondent No. 1 was wearing Manila, full-pant and inner pant and respondent No. 2 was wearing full-shirt and trou-ser.Her aunt Sou.Kasturabai PW-6 came there.The incident was narrated to her also.After reaching of the father of the prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.Savita, they went to Police Patil PW-7 Ganpat Mahajan.He was apprised about the incident and thereafter they i.e. prosecutrix Ku.Savita, her father, her aunt Sou.Kasturabai and Police Patil started going to police Station.On the way, Police Patil PW-7" Ganpat Mahajan asked PW-6 Kasturabai to verify the fact of rape and whether there were any signs of rape on the person or on the clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.They went in the field by name 'Mala'.PW-6 Kasutrabai verified that her inner pant & Maxi had blood stains and white semen stains.Then they went to Police Station Borakhedi.3. Prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.The offence under Sections 376, 354 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondents.PW-10 PSI Bhimrao Wankhede conducted the investigation.The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination.He had also collected the samples of vaginal smear, pubic hairs.He also seized the clothes of the prosecutrix.Upon x-ray examination, he had issued the certificate to the Investigating Officer, Exh. 23, opining that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was 16-18 years 13 years.It may be stated that during the course of investigation, after arrest, both the respondents were also referred for medical examination.No semen stains noted.No foreign body seen on hairs or in private part.Vulva and Vag.orifis stained with blood & hairs around vulva matted.On P/S, no injuries seen over cervix vaginal walls, blood oozing through OS' + P/v at AV AF NS Ex clear chetle intact, hymens ruptured.No recent sign.Rupture of hymen, blood present in vagina & around the vulval orifis.(6) Pubic hairs matted with blood & stains trimned are collected for chemical analysis.(7) Swab from labia minora and vagina with post Fx taken on glassed slides, fixed & sealed for Chemical analysis (8) Blood sample taken for grouping & Ph. typing and sealed.(9) Pieces of clothes from Parkar & underpant are taken in bottle, sealed for Chemical analysis.He also stated that she was wearing Manila and blouse of white colour.JUDGMENT S.R. Dongaonkar, J.Challenge of the appellant State in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Criminal Appeal No. 9/1990, by which he allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents who were held guilty by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldana, for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 354 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, each of them being sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default R.I. for 6 months, in Sessions Case No. 61/1988, and acquitted them of the charge.The prosecution case in nutshell is that, prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.The clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.Savita were also seized as per Seizure Panchnama Exh. 34 in his presence.After due investigation and on receipt of C.A. Report Exh. 24, the respondents were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.The respondents pleaded not guilty.The prosecution has examined the aforesaid witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents, besides PW-3 Headmaster, Maroti Ingle, who had produced the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix to prove her date of birth as per Exh. 30 and PW-4, HC Rane, who had carried out some part of investigation.The respondents abjured the guilt and examined 4 witnesses in defence.Their defence mainly is that in the said village there is habit of lodging false reports of "rape".Police Patil is also facing a case of rape and he is instrumental to lodge some such false reports.It is also their defence that due to inimical terms between the prosecution witnesses and the respondents & their relatives, a false case has been reported against the respondents.DW-1 Prakash Khiste has been examined to prove the blood group of Respondent- No. 1 Rameshwar.DW-2 Watsalabai Bundhe has been examined to show that she had also filed a criminal case against Raghunath Suradkar and Pundlik Mandar about the rape and that was a false case.DW-3 Ramdas Haramkar has been examined to show the bad terms between the prosecution witnesses and the respondents' relatives.DW-4 Retd.ASI Keshaorao Patil has been examined to prove the report lodged by the prosecutrix Ku.Savita, mainly to prove that he had written the report as per her say.The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that prosecutrix Ku.Savita has led trustworthy evidence and she is an artless village woman whose testimony inspires confidence and she cannot make out a false charge of rape against the respondents.He, therefore, held respondents guilty of the offences charged and convicted & sentenced them, however, he did not award any separate sentence against the respondents for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.The respondents challenged this judgment of conviction and sentence in the Court of Sessions Judge, Buldana.He also considered the fact that there was total discrepant version as regards Maxi, Parkar (Petticoat) and the uniform of the prosecutrix.There was clear doubt as to which clothes she was wearing at the time of incident.Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents.In fact, the Police Patil PW-7 Ganpat Mahajan is himself facing a rape charge and therefore, the evidence of prosecutrix Ku.Savita should not be considered as trustworthy, more so because it is riddled with so many improbabilities and also because the medical evidence is contrary to what she has stated about the incident.DW-2 Watsalabai had also deposed about the habit of lodging false report and in fact she stated that Police Patil informed her to make a false allegations against Raghunath Suradkar and Pundlik Mandar about committing rape on her.She has also stated that her husband had advised her that they are required to reside in the village, therefore, she had filed false rape case against them.What is more she has stated is that Police Patil had informed her to break her bangles and a lantern and thereafter her saree was taken away and brought the same after containing some stains of semen and thereafter she, Police Patil and other villagers had gone to the police station and she was required to put thumb print on her complaint, if such is the evidence led by a woman of the village, it is rather must to find out whether the prosecutrix Savita is reliable or not and whether her evidence is corroborated from some independent source.This takes us to consider the medical evidence on record.(10) X-ray of wris St. AP both hands, elbow are advised for conformation of age.Report regarding age of Pt.will be given after examination.It is rather surprising and shocking that in the said certificate he has not mentioned as to whether there were signs of any recent intercourse.But the fact remains that the injuries stated by him are abrasion on dorsal aspect of the hands.He has specifically stated that there were no injuries or scratches seen on thigh, breast, back and private parts.The case of the prosecution is that she was dragged first by Respondent No. 1 Rameshwar and then by both respondents in the field of cotton crops.She was made to lie down, respondent No. 2 pressed her mouth and respondent No. 1 committed forcible intercourse with her after removing her inner wear and also his own and all the time she was resisting.She is a girl of about 16 to 18 years.She is from village.It is difficult to believe that had she resisted, she would have suffered only two small injuries that too of a very little dimensions on the dorsal sides of her arms.Savita, there was complete sexual intercourse with emission.But then the CAs Report does not show the existence of semen in the vaginal smear and the clothes.It is clear that had there been complete intercourse as alleged by the prosecutrix Ku.Savita, some semen & spermatozoa would have been found on these slides.Therefore, the medical evidence as well as the report of C.A. runs contrary to the evidence of the prosecutrix.The learned appellate Judge has pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence of prosecutrix Ku.Savita and other witnesses including Police Patil.It is rather difficult to say that all these observations made by him are incorrect or perverse, though to some of them we are unable to concur.But fact remains that this is not a case of 'no corroboration' to the evidence of the prosecutrix, but it is a case of medical evidence being contrary to her story.The learned A.P.P. is unable to explain as to how such evidence can be reconciled with the theory of the prosecutrix that there was forcible complete intercourse despite her resistance in a field of cotton crops without resulting into any injuries on her rest of the body.In the instant case, we had called for the clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.There is lot of difference between the clothes; Maxi and the petticoat.Savita in her evidence has stated that at the time of incident, she had a Maxi on her person and there were stains of blood & semen on her Maxi and the inner pant.It is also pertinent to note that the clothes on her person were taken by the Medical Officer, PW-1 Dr. Dilip Kulkarni.He has stated that she was wearing petticoat.He also stated that she was wearing inner pant of greenish colour with strip, which was soaked with blood stains and other stains, the same was preserved for analysis.Savita, on the contrary that evidence tend to cast doubt on the prosecution version.

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code