JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by appellant Ram Bahadur sent through Superintendent, Central Jail Bharatpur arises out of the judgment and order dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 3, Bharatpur, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner s stated below: 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. On 26.7.94 PW Rajendra Singh submitted a written report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur to the effect that he had lodged a report on 4.5.94 at Police Station Chiksana about missing of a girl and a boy, which was pending investigation at the said police station. In the course of their efforts to trace them out, it was found that one Nobel person had taken away the aforesaid girl and boy by deceitful means. It was further alleged that nothing could be found about the boy but the girl Mst. Shivdei was under the detention of Mooli, Ratan, Dayali and Hariram at village Khora, Police Station Vair. According to the complainant, the accused appellant who abducted the girl was also present with them, he complainant stated that these persons intend to sale the girl. In the circumstances, the complainant requested to get his sister recovered. 3. Having received the above report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police directed the SHO of Police Station, Chiksana to register a case, proceed with the investigation and to take action to get the girl recovered. Accordingly, the SHO registered a case vide FIR No. 156/94 for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 368 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. In the course of investigation, the police arrested Mooli, Ratan and Had Ram, but since no offence was committed by these persons, the police submitted an application before the court to release the accused under the provisions of Section 169 Cr.PC. and after completion of investigation submitted F.I.R. No. 46/95 as against these three accused. 4. Ultimately, on the information of informer, the police recovered Mst. and after completion of investigation submitted F.I.R. No. 46/95 as against these three accused. 4. Ultimately, on the information of informer, the police recovered Mst. Shivdei on 20.11.99 and got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she made accusation against accused Ram Bahadur. On the basis of her statement, the police found that the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 302 and 201 IPC was made out against the accused. After arresting the accused on 2.12.1999 and having completed entire formalities as to the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bharatpur. The learned Magistrate having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The case came to be tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur. 5. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it and after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties framed charges against the accused appellant. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. In the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was complete. the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. 7. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge arrived at a conclusion that accused appellant abducted Mst. Shivdei, kept her wrongfully confined and committed rape on her and as such committed offence under Sections 366, 344 and 376 IPC and accordingly, vide its judgment and order impugned in this appeal convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove. Hence the present appeal against conviction. 8. I have heard learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the judgment under appeal and the evidence to available on record. 9. In the case of sexual offence, the age of the victim girl is very significant and plays vital role. Therefore, it needs to be satisfactorily established by the prosecution during trial of the case by cogent and reliable evidence. 9. In the case of sexual offence, the age of the victim girl is very significant and plays vital role. Therefore, it needs to be satisfactorily established by the prosecution during trial of the case by cogent and reliable evidence. In the case at hand, on a perusal of the impugned is judgment it appears that the trial court has held that the age of the victim girl at the time of her abduction was either 18 years or more than 18 years. Having gone through the record I have not been able to lay hands on any material or the medical evidence so as to find out the age of the victim. On the contrary, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and ai the evidence of victim herself, it can safely be inferred that her age at the time of her alleged abduction was not less than 18 years. Therefore, in my considered view the trial court was right in arriving at a conclusion that the victim girl was not below the age of 18 years at the time when she was allegedly abducted by the accused appellant in the month of April, 25 1994. 10. Coming to the merits of the case. it need be observed that in the cases of sexual assault, the court must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity and the should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Likewise. it is well settled that prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principles of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness. 11. In the case at hand, the matter was first reported to the police on 4.5.94 by PW1 Rajendra, brother of the victim girl as is evidence from the written report, Ex.P1 submitted by him to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur on 26.7.94. 11. In the case at hand, the matter was first reported to the police on 4.5.94 by PW1 Rajendra, brother of the victim girl as is evidence from the written report, Ex.P1 submitted by him to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur on 26.7.94. A glance at Ex.P1 reveals that PW1 Rajendra had submitted a report at Police Station, Chiksana on 4.5.94 about missing of sister and brother, which is not on record and therefore, it cannot be said . to what were the contents of the said report. It also cannot be said whether she was abducted and/or, if abducted, by whom. Even the report Ex.P1 dated 26.7.94 does not contain the name of the person who abducted the victim lady. This report only mentions that Mst. Shivdei was under the detention of Mooli S/o Hari Chand, Ratan S/o Kamal and Hari Ram S/o Mooli in village Khora, Police Station Weir and one Mahatma who had abducted Mst. Shivdei was also present along with these three persons. However, the Victim girl could not traced and the police after investigation submitted Final Report against the above named 3 persons. 12. It was only after the victim girl was recovered by the police on the information of informer, vide memo Ex.P6 dated 20.11.1999 that the police came into motion. Surprisingly enough, the victim girl was recovered not from the custody of accused appellant but from the house of her husband s Udai Singh. On being asked by the Investigating Officer, she straightway declined to have her medically examination. It is thus evident that Mst. Shivdei who was already married to Udai Singh Gujar of village Chowkipura (Bharatpur) at the time of her alleged abduction, returned back at her own. 13. On 20.11.99, the police recorded the statement of Mst. Shivdei and on the same day her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. was also recorded. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. the prosecutrix has stated that appellant kept her confined at his house in village Pasiyapur, district Sahjahanpur (U.P.). He used to threat and beat her. He kept her as his wife and continued to have sexual. intercourse with her for 2 1/2 years. He never permitted her to move out. In portion A to B, she deposed that accused took her towards Bayana, wherefrom she escaped on the pretext of urinating and came to her father's house in Chowkipura. He kept her as his wife and continued to have sexual. intercourse with her for 2 1/2 years. He never permitted her to move out. In portion A to B, she deposed that accused took her towards Bayana, wherefrom she escaped on the pretext of urinating and came to her father's house in Chowkipura. She further stated that from father's house, she came to her husband and was residing with him. 14. Mst. Shivdei was examined as PW7 on 10.7.2001. The relevant part of her statement in her examination in chief is that 7 years earlier, the appellant enticed and took her away to his house in village Pasiyapur where he committed rape on her and kept her confined for 2 1/2 years. He was not permitting her to go out of the house. She collected some money in instalments and managed to escape. In cross examination, she stated that 3-4 persons were residing at the house of accused but she was not knowing them. However, the accused stated about these persons to be his brothers. She did not complain any of the persons residing at the house of accused as accused was not permitting her to talk to any body. According to her, the accused used to accompany her even when she was going out to attend the call of nature. The villagers used to met them on way, but the accused never allowed her to talk to any one. She further deposed that she came to Chowkipura via Khajanpur, Barelli and Mathura. The police personnel had also met her on way and she informed them that she was going to her sister's place and that she had also informed the police while on way about the acts done by the accused. However the police did not take any notice and asked her to go wherever she intends to go. She stated that she was married 5 years prior to her leaving the house and that she had no ill will against her husband. 15. However the police did not take any notice and asked her to go wherever she intends to go. She stated that she was married 5 years prior to her leaving the house and that she had no ill will against her husband. 15. It is thus crystal clear that the prosecutrix, as per her own statement stayed with the accused appellant for about 2 1/2 years at his house in village Pasiyapur (U.P.) and during this entire period she did not complain anything as against the appellant to any one, despite the fact that she had ample opportunity during this sufficiently long period of 2-112 years to get rid of the clutches of the appellant or even to make complaint about as her abduction and sexual harassment by the appellant. As per her version, the appellant kept her as his wife and maintained sexual relations. When the prosecutrix, after staying with the appellant for 2 1/2 years could have managed to scape from the house of appellant, in that event she could have escaped much earlier or at least could have made complaint against the appellant. 16. The fact that prosecutrix returned home after about 2 1/2 years of her alleged abduction stands fortified by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. PW1 Rajendra, brother of the prosecutrix has deposed that his 1 sister returned home after about 2-3 years. According to him, his sister informed about she being taken away by rail. She also informed about travelling by bus. PW2 Deep Chand has deposed that the prosecutrix had returned after a year. PW4 Ganga Ram has deposed that the prosecutrix had returned after about 2-2 1/2 years of the alleged incident. Similarly, PW6 Ramesh, neighbour of father of the prosecutrix has also deposed that Shivdei returned to the village after about 2 1/2 years. Even PW8 Udai Singh, none other than the husband of prosecutrix has deposed that his wife came back after about 2 1/2 years. He clarified that she had come to village Chokipura and then came to his house about 3-4 days prior to the police came to his house. The witness stated that the incident relates to April 94 and the police was probably informed in October-November, 1996. He stated that Shivdei Stayed with him for about 2/2 1/2 years darter she came back. 17. The witness stated that the incident relates to April 94 and the police was probably informed in October-November, 1996. He stated that Shivdei Stayed with him for about 2/2 1/2 years darter she came back. 17. Thus there cannot be any doubt that the prosecutrix allegedly stayed with the appellant for about 2 1/2 years and thereafter returned to her father's house at her own. It appears that no one, either from her parents' side or her in-laws' side, had any grudge about the alleged incident of prosecutrix being allegedly abducted by the appellant, her illegal confinement for about 2 1/2 years and her sexual harassment as neither the parents nor brother of the prosecutrix informed the police about her return. Even the husband of the prosecutrix did not chose to inform the police, more particularly when he was aware of the fact that a report about her missing was lodged with the police in April, 1994. That apart, the conduct of the prosecutrix, inasmuch as (i) she had ample opportunity to have complained against the appellant during the period she alleged to have remained in his illegal confinement and was subjected to sexual harassment for a .period of 2 and 1/2 years (ii) she could have escaped from the house of appellant even much earlier leaving the house of appellant at her own, and (iii) observing silence and not informing any body about what happened with her for so sufficiently long period during which she remained with her parents and then with her husband after she escaped from the house of appellant, goes to show that the prosecutrix was fully satisfied with the events that happened during all this period or that she had no grudge against any one. In these circumstances, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot at all be said to be reliable, trustworthy or worthy of credence and is liable to be rejected. 18. It was for the first time after recover of the victim girl on 20.11.99 (after two and half years of stay with her husband after she came back to village at her own) that the prosecutrix or any member of her family, either from the side of her parents or from the side of her in-laws levelled allegation against the appellant. As per the prosecution case put forward during trial, the prosecution witnesses were aware of the fact of prosecutrix having been abducted by the appellant. But surprisingly enough, as already stated above, there is no mention in Ex.P1 that it was accused appellant Ram Bahadur who had abducted the prosecutrix along with her brother. Initially a report about the missing of prosecutrix and her brother was lodged by PW1 Rajendra, at Police Station, Chiksana on 4.5.94 as is evident from the written report, Ex.P1 submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur on 26.7.94. The said report has not been exhibited in the course of trial and, therefore it cannot be said that complainant had suspected the appellant as an abductor. After alleged report dated 4.5.95, the complainant and his family members ken mum and after a lapse of more than 3 months, the complainant submitted a report, Ex.P1 informing the police that prosecutrix was in the custody of 3 persons. The matter was investigated into on the said report and ultimately FR was given against the 3 persons named in the report. Even a glance at Ex.P1 reveals that name of the appellant does not find place therein. What is stated in the report Ex.P1 is that during the course of efforts in tracing the victim girl it had come to the knowledge of complainant that some Mahatma abducted the prosecutrix. However, from the evidence on record it can well be said that appellant was well known to the witnesses. 19. From what has been discussed above, it must be concluded that o the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that appellant Ram Bahadur abducted the prosecutrix, kept her in his illegal confinement for about 2-112 years and committed sexual offence against her will. Therefore, the conviction of appellant Ram Bahadur under Sections 366, 344 and 376 IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. 20. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. His conviction under Sections 366, 344 and 376 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed - Conviction Set Aside. *******