Penal Code, 1860–Secs. 376 & 366–Conviction–Sustainability–FIR was lodged on the basis of oral report wherein the assailants were not named–Prosecution did not care to prove the FIR–Prosecutrix currectly identified B as a rapist, however, she exonerated him because a monetary deal had taken place–Her admission upto effect that there was no force or coercion in her so called abduction–Proceedings of test identification are tained–Evidence of prosecutrix is under a grave cloud of doubt–Held, appellants are entitled for getting the benefit of doubt.
