Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 198 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 08/09.07.1997 passed by Sri Gopal Krishna Jha, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in S.Tr. No. 86 of 1993/20 of 1993. ************ 1. Ekarsi Ram @ Sunil Kumar, S/o Bhola Ram, resident of Village-Shanti Nagar, P.S.-Chakia, District-East Champaran. 2. Chandrika Ram, S/o Ganesh Ram, Resident of Village-Hatahatpur, P.S.-Chakia, District-East Champaran. …… (Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy “Raman”, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 376/511 and 354 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in S.Tr. No. 86 of 1993/20 of 1993 by a judgment dated 08/09.07.1997. 2. The case of the complainant Kalawati Devi is that on 03.01.1993 at about 5 P.M. when she was alone in the house the appellants entered the same and told her to compromise a case with Krishna Ram and when she refused to do so both the appellants fell her on the ground and attempted to rape her. She started shouting at which other persons came and the accused persons fled away. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined five witnesses out of whom P.W. 5 is the prosecutrix herself. P.W. 1, Ganesh Gosain supported the case of the prosecution 2 in examination-in-chief but in cross-examination completely belied the same. P.W. 2, Basudeo Ram, a neighbour who had gone to the place of occurrence supported the fact that the victim had fallen to the ground while one of the appellants was on her. P.W. 3, Ramadhari Gosai has also stated likewise. P.W. 4, Naina Devi stated that when she went to the place of occurrence she saw the appellants were leaving the house and victim was nude. When P.W. 5, Kalawati Devi the prosecutrix was examined she did not support the case of the prosecution. 4. In view once the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution the corroborative evidence with regard to the original prosecution case is meaningless. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 08/09.07.1997 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in S.Tr. No. 86 of 1993/20 of 1993 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 11th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-