JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.3.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur whereby the accused/appellants (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) have been convicted under Sections 452/ 34,511/376/34 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced as follows:— Sr. No. Offence Sentence imposed 1 2 3 1. Section 511 read with Sections 376 and 34 I.P.C. Simple imprisonment for seven years each and fine of Rs. 15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine each accused to undergo further S.I. for one year. 2. Section 452 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Simple imprisonment for five years each and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine each accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 3. Section 342 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Simple imprisonment for one year each. 2.. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons in brief is that at about 1 a.m. on 29th September, 2001 in furtherance of their common intention of committing rape on the prosecutrix (PW-1) they trespassed into the house of Shukru Ram (PW-3) at village Chhatridhar. After forcing their entry into the house accused Shobha Ram caught hold of husband of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and accused Roshan Lal committed rape on the prosecutrix, who is blind. When PW-3 started crying accused Shobha Ram gagged his mouth. Thereafter accused Roshan Lal caught hold of PW-3 and accused Shobha Ram committed rape on the prosecutrix. The accused threatened the prosecutrix and her husband to be done away within case they divulged the occurrence to anyone. On 1.10.2001 one Kumat Ram went to the house of PW-3 who narrated the occurrence to him. Said Kumat Ram took PW-1 and PW 3 to Kanwar Singh (PW 2) Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat and the occurrence was narrated to him. PW-2 gave a telephonic information to Police Station, Nirmand vide Daily Diary Report Ext. PW-5/A. Thereafter a police party headed by S.I. Parkash Chand (PW-11) proceeded to the house of PW-2 where statement of PW-3 Ext. PW-3/A was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and on its basis FIR Ext. PW-6/A was registered at Police Station, Nirmand and the investigation followed. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and on such examination Dr. R.D. Goel (PW-9) issued M.L.C. Ext. PW-3/A was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and on its basis FIR Ext. PW-6/A was registered at Police Station, Nirmand and the investigation followed. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and on such examination Dr. R.D. Goel (PW-9) issued M.L.C. Ext. PW-9/A. At the time of examination of the prosecutrix her wearing apparels i.e. Salwar, Kameez and vaginal swab were taken in possession for chemical analysis. After arrest of the accused persons they were also got medically examined and on such examination Dr. Rakesh Gupta (PW-10) found both the accused persons sexually potent and accordingly issued MLCs Ext. PW-10/A and Ext. PW-10/B respectively. During the course of investigation on production by accused Roshan Lal his pant was taken in possession vide Memo Ext. PW-5/P and one pant of accused Shobha Ram on production of by his wife Indra Devi was taken in possession vide Memo PW-8/A. The wearing apparels of the prosecutrix and the accused persons and vaginal swab taken in possession, as aforesaid, were sent for chemical analysis and vide report Ext. PW-11/D some blood traces were noticed on the Salwar of the prosecutrix but no blood or semen was found on her shirt. Some traces of blood and human semen was found in the vaginal swab. Human semen was found on the pants of the accused persons. On being satisfied of the commission of the offences by the accused persons the concerned S.H.O. submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons who were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur on a charge under Sections 452/34, 376/34, 506/34 and 342/34 IPC. To prove the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. On consideration of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 4. On consideration of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the statement of the prosecutrix is utterly unreliable and has not been believed even by the learned Sessions Judge to prove the charge of rape and that there is not any other cogent and reliable evidence on the record to prove the commission of any of the offences for which the accused were charged, therefore, the impugned conviction and sentences are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the impugned conviction and sentences contended that the material on record has been rightly and correctly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and based on that appropriate conviction and sentences have been awarded and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 6. It is indisputable that in a case of rape it is statement of the prosecutrix which is most relevant and material to substantiate a charge. In the case in hand, the trial Court itself had not concluded on the basis of the material on record that it was a case of rape but it came to the conclusion that it was a case of attempted rape. These findings are not under challenge by the State. However, a proper scrutiny of the statement of the prosecutrix reveals that it is not even a case of attempted rape but the accused appears to have been roped in a cooked up case. The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief, no doubt, has stated that the accused persons while intoxicated came from village Byal, caught hold of her husband from the neck and dragged her towards the door. They broke the door of her residential house and accused Shobha Ram broke the string of her Salwar and committed "Shararat and laid down his body upon her". Accused Roshan Lal also committed "Shararat" with her which each of them did twice. Thereafter both the accused went to their houses. Evidently this statement is quite cryptic, lacking in details. They broke the door of her residential house and accused Shobha Ram broke the string of her Salwar and committed "Shararat and laid down his body upon her". Accused Roshan Lal also committed "Shararat" with her which each of them did twice. Thereafter both the accused went to their houses. Evidently this statement is quite cryptic, lacking in details. However, in the cross-examination, the facts admitted and stated by the prosecutrix are destructive of what she had stated in examination-in-chief. The version that the accused forced the entry into the house by breaking open the door is neither available in the FIR nor in the statements of the material witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with which the material witnesses have been duly confronted. According to the prosecutrix, the door of the house was bolted from inside and the accused broke it. Neither any broken door had been taken in possession nor it is the version of the Investigating Officer that any broken door was found at the place of occurrence. Nor it is in the initial version as given in the FIR or the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The version that she was dragged by the accused persons to the door of the house is also given by the prosecutrix for the first time at the time of recording of her evidence but is not supported by medical evidence as no injury marks were found on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of her medical examination. Her version that it was accused Shobha Ram who had broken the string of her Salwar is contradictory of the version given in Ext. PW-3/A the basis of the First Information Report according to which accused Shobha Ram had initially caught hold of PW-3 whereas accused Roshan Lal had slept with the prosecutrix in the bed and committed rape on her. Though according to the initial version the prosecutrix is blind, but it is in the evidence of the prosecutrix herself that she could not see properly during night time but could see during day time. She has further admitted that "no Galat Kaam was committed with her by the accused". She claims that she resisted the commission of Shararat with her and hit the accused with her legs. She has further admitted that "no Galat Kaam was committed with her by the accused". She claims that she resisted the commission of Shararat with her and hit the accused with her legs. However, this version is neither in the FIR nor in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mark PW-1/A. She re-affirms that though she had stated before the Investigation Officer that she could not see for the last ten years but the statement that she could see during day time as given by her in the Court is correct. Though the version of the prosecution is that the house of the victim is situated in a lonely place but the prosecutrix has admitted that houses of Vinod Kumar and Kunta Devi are near her house and if anyone raises voice in her house it could be heard by the inhabitants of those houses. She further admits that when the accused came to her house they exchanged good wishes with her husband. She further goes on to state that when the accused committed "Shararat" with her husband (PW-3) resisted the accused persons and caused injuries to them with a Danda. This version is also contradictory of the medical opinion given on the medical examination of the accused persons on whose persons no injuries were found. She claims that her husband has also sustained injuries from which even blood oozed but it is also only at the time of giving evidence in the Court. The fact remains that her husband has not been medically examined nor it is claimed by him that he sustained any injury as alleged by PW-1. It is also her admitted case that they used to prepare illicit liquor. It is also admitted by her that on 30.9.2001 her husband (PW-3) had gone to village Koel and demanded a sum of Rs. 275 from accused Shobha Ram who was to pay such an amount on account of illicit liquor purchased by him from them. It is also admitted by her that on refusal of Shobha Ram to pay the amount her husband had told him that he would be taught a lesson. She further admits that she was not having cordial relations with Shobha Ram. It is also admitted by her that on refusal of Shobha Ram to pay the amount her husband had told him that he would be taught a lesson. She further admits that she was not having cordial relations with Shobha Ram. She has further admitted that Malu Ram, Man Dass, Mela Ram, Masu Ram and Prakash Chand told her husband to file the case against the accused persons and to enable them to institute the case against the accused persons they gave money to them and a sum of Rs. 400 was paid to the police officials by her. She has further admitted clearly and unambiguously that a false case has been filed against the accused persons. She has further admitted that the case has been instituted against the accused persons in order to take money from them. Thus, in view of the aforesaid admissions made by the prosecutrix in her evidence, it becomes clear that the case against the accused persons had been initiated because of the dispute regarding recovery of price of illicit liquor and at the behest of certain persons who even gave financial help to the complainant party. 7. It is true that a conviction can be based on a confidence inspiring statement of prosecutrix without corroboration of her statement. However, it is also true that a conviction cannot be based on a non-confidence inspiring, self contradictory and self destroying statement of the prosecutrix. 8. In Om Prakash v. State of H.P., 2000 Cri. L.J. 1591, a Division Bench of this Court found the statement of the prosecutrix highly suspicious and held as under :— "19. In view of what has been stated above, the statement of the prosecutrix is not of the nature which may require some assuring evidence only to rely but is such which cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by independent evidence on all material particulars." It was further held :— "34. In conclusion it can be safely said that in this case the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and is, therefore, unreliable nor it is corroborated by the other evidence to assure credence to it. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused, thus the impugned judgment is not sustainable." 9. In Dalip and another v. State of M.P., 2002 SCC (Cri) 592, the Honble Apex Court held as follows:— "12. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused, thus the impugned judgment is not sustainable." 9. In Dalip and another v. State of M.P., 2002 SCC (Cri) 592, the Honble Apex Court held as follows:— "12. The law is well settled that the prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made the basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. In State of H.P. v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 980, on a review of decisions of this Court, it was held that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc., if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on." It was further held :— "14.......The Court is finding it difficult to accept the truthfulness of the version of the prosecutrix that any sexual assault as alleged was committed on her in view of the fact that her narration of the incident becomes basically infirm on account of being contradicted by the statement of her own aunt and medical evidence and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The defence has given suggestion in cross-examination for false implication of the accused persons which, however, have not gone beyond being suggestions merely. It is not necessary for us to dwell upon further to find out the probability of truth contained in the suggestions because we are not satisfied generally of the correctness of the story as told by the prosecutrix. We find it difficult to hold the prosecutrix in the case as one on whose testimony an implicit reliance can be placed. 15. For the foregoing reasons the appeals are allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court is set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them." 10. 15. For the foregoing reasons the appeals are allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court is set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them." 10. In Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. and another, 2003 SCC (Cri) 596, the Honble Apex Court in a case of acquittal of the accused by High Court in a rape case, held as under :— "21. On an overall appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix and her conduct we have come to the conclusion that PW 1 is not a reliable witness. We, therefore, concur with the view of the High Court that a conviction cannot- be safely based upon the evidence of the prosecutrix alone. It is no doubt true that in law the conviction of an accused on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is permissible, but that is in a case where the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this case is not of such quality, and there is no other evidence on record which may even lend some assurance, short of corroboration that she is making a truthful statement. We, therefore, find no reason to disagree with the finding of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the High Court is a possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record and, therefore, warrants no interference. This appeal is dismissed." 11. A similar view has been taken by this Court in case Jeet Ram v. State of H.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2002 decided on 19.5.2003) and Rattan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 537 of 2002 decided on 10.6.2003). 12. Since the statement of the prosecutrix, as already discussed hereinabove, is self contradictory, self destroying and non confidence inspiring, therefore, it could not be acted upon. 13. Similarly the statement of PW-3 is unreliable and contradictory of his initial version vide Ext. PW-3/A, the major contradictions being about the version as to which one of the accused first committed the rape and about the time when Kimtu came to the house of PW-3. 13. Similarly the statement of PW-3 is unreliable and contradictory of his initial version vide Ext. PW-3/A, the major contradictions being about the version as to which one of the accused first committed the rape and about the time when Kimtu came to the house of PW-3. As per the evidence of PW-3, it was accused Shobha Ram who first committed rape on the prosecutrix whereas according to the contents of Ext. PW-3/A, accused Roshan Lal was the first to commit the rape. As per the evidence of PW-3 Kimtu came to his house on hearing his cries after the occurrence at about 1 a.m. On the same night but as per the contents of PW-1 Kimtu Ram came to the house of PW-3 on 1.10.2001 and took PW-1 and PW-3 to PW-2. According to PW-2, PW-3 met him on 30.9.2001 at his shop but did not disclose anything except that he was to obtain money from accused Shobha Ram. The version of PW-3, that accused Shobha Ram gave a tooth bite to the prosecutrix and blood was oozing out from her, is belied by the medical evidence. Above all PW-3 admits in his cross-examination that he cannot identify the accused persons as they are residents of a far off place and were not earlier known to him. Thus, the statement of PW-3 is also of no help to the prosecution. 14. It may be pointed out here that there is delay in lodging the FIR which has not been explained in any manner. The alleged occurrence took place at about 1 a.m. on 29.9.2001 but FIR was lodge on 1.10.2001. Though the initial version in the FIR is that the accused had threatened the prosecutrix and her husband not to divulge the occurrence to anyone otherwise they would be done to death. However, PW-1 and PW-3 in their evidence have nowhere stated about the alleged threat. They have not assigned any reason whatsoever as to why the occurrence was not reported by them to the police or to the Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat on 29th or 30th September, 2001. This unexplained delay is suggestive of consultations and deliberations before the lodging of the FIR and is, therefore, fatal to the case of the prosecution. 15. The medical evidence is also of no help to the prosecution. A perusal of the MLCs Ext. PW-9/A, Ext. PW-10/A and Ext. This unexplained delay is suggestive of consultations and deliberations before the lodging of the FIR and is, therefore, fatal to the case of the prosecution. 15. The medical evidence is also of no help to the prosecution. A perusal of the MLCs Ext. PW-9/A, Ext. PW-10/A and Ext. PW-10/B indicate that it cannot be a case of rape as no injury marks whatsoever was found on the person of the accused or the prosecutrix. The finding of the semen in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix or blood traces or semen on her clothes is also of no help to the prosecution because at the relevant time the prosecutrix was admittedly sleeping with her husband. The accused are admittedly married persons, therefore, finding of semen in their pants is also of no help to the prosecution. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused persons is unreliable, untrustworthy and incapable of connecting the accused with the commission of the offences alleged to have been committed by them. Therefore, the impugned conviction and sentences are liable to be set aside. 17. As a result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction of and sentences imposed on the accused/appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge against them. The accused who are presently undergoing the sentences of imprisonment awarded to them be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in custody under any other process of law. Fine, if recovered, be refunded to them. -