LODHA, J. - (1.)CHAMPIAL accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511, 447,323 and 324, IPC, and was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, by his judgment dated 7th February, 1974.
(2.)ACCORDING to the prosecution, at about 8 AM on 10th November, 1970, the accused with the intention ravishing one Mst. Kanchanbai, wife of Radhakrishan, first made her fall down on the ground from a 'dengri' in Village- Vishankheda, and then, removed her 'ghagri' and attempted to ravish her. Mst. Kanchanbai raised a cry, whereupon, her brothers Shrilal & Shivnarain ran and caught hold of the accused. An injury by a 'ballam' was caused to Shrilal. Shivnarain also sustained some injury.
After a report of the alleged incident, was made to the police, investigation commenced and a challan was submitted against the accused persons. After committal proceedings in sessions trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses, out of whom, PW 1 is Mst. Kanchanbai the prosecutrix herself; and PW 2 Shivnarain; and PW 3 Shrilal are her brothers. PW 4 Jamnalal is the Patel of the village.

It appears that the prosecution has conducted this case half-heartedly, as the most important evidence of the doctor, was not got recorded; and the investigating officer himself also did not give any evidence In this appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondent, Smt. Kamla Jain, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the acquittal of the accused deserves to be set aside and he must be convicted of the offences mentioned above.

The learned trial court has pointed out in its judgment that the evidence of PW 1 Mst. Kanchanbai is contradictory to the statements of her brothers, namely, Shivnarain PW 2 and Shrilal PW 3. The prosecutrix in her statement, has stated that no penetration or attempt to penetration was made by the accused. But, her two brothers have stated that sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix by Champalal accused. Accused Champalal himself has admitted having been taken away to the Badi, and the offence so far as the trespass is concerned, it has been held to be completely concocted, by the learned trial court Mst. Kanchanbai has deposed that accused Champalal, whose field was adjacent to the field of her brothers, came to her, and after making her fall down on the ground, started removing her 'ghagri' and at that time, her brothers arrived there hearing her cry. Shivnarain PW 2 and Shrilal PW 3 to the contrary have stated in their statements that they saw accused Champalal committed sexual intercourse with their sister, Mst. Kanchanbai. Here, the important lacuna left by the prosecution is that neither the doctor has been examined, nor the injuries of Mst. Kanchanbai and her brothers have been proved by any other evidence.

We have also noticed that whereas Mst. Kanchanbai has deposed that at the time when Champalal was lifted from over her, he (Champalal) inflicted Ballam' blows to her brothers. Contrary to this, Shivnarain PW 2 has stated that Champalal had managed to escape and when he was caught for the second time, Champalal inflicted a 'ballam' blow on the left wrist of Shivnarain. Shrilal PW 2 has given a third story that 'ballam' injury was sustained accidentally when he pursued Champalal, who managed to escape. Thus, it is obvious that all the three prosecution witnesses, i. e. , Mst. Kanch-anbai PW 1 and her two brothers, namely, Shivnarain PW 2 and Shrilal PW 3 have given contradictory statements, and there redivergences and discrepancies in their statements, and hence, they cannot be reconciled.

(3.)WE are convinced that appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court, is just and proper, and since we are of the opinion that no inference is called for, it is not necessary to mention here in detail the discrepancies and the contradictions pointed out by the learned trial court in its judgment, with which we are in full agreement.
In the result, there is no force in this appeal, and it is hereby dismissed. .