JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against judgment dated 30-6-2001 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 56/2001, thereby convicting each of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) and 506B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and RI for Six months respectively, in default of payment of fine to suffer RI 6 months. The facts of the case stated in brief is that on 15-11-2000 in the mid night at 12.00 O clock while the Prosecutrix "S" was sleeping in her house along with her husband Anandrao (PW 2) and her mother-in-law, Sundarbai (PW 3) at the relevant time, accused/appellants Naresh and Shankar came over there and knocked at the door. As soon as Anandrao, husband of the Prosecutrix, opened the door, accused/appellants entered the house and asked about Suresh. Anandrao denied the presence of said Suresh whereupon, accused/appellants assaulted him by lathi and Anandrao ran away out of the house through the back door. Thereafter, accused/appellants took the Prosecutrix near kiln and committed sexual intercourse with her one by one. On the basis of the aforesaid incident, on the next day, i.e. on 16-11-2000, at about 6.30 p.m. report was lodged at Mahila Thana vide Ex. P/1. The report was reduced in writing by Nisha Reddy (PW 9). The Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Rachna Bagadi (PW 5). Her medical report is Ex. P/2. During the course of investigation, accused/appellants Naresh and Shankar were arrested. Both the accused/appellants got medically examined regarding their capability of sexual intercourse. Spot map is Exp. P/9. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Seized Petticoat, slides of vaginal swab and underwears of both the apellants were sent for chemical analysis. The report is Ex. P/l5 which discloses the presence of semen and spermatozoa on petticoat and underwears. Charge sheet was filed and Charges were framed against the accused/appellants. Accused/appellants abjured their guilt and have submitted that the Prosecutrix was keep of Suresh (PW 4) with whom they had previous ill-will at whose instance they have been falsely implicated in the case. The husband of the Prosecutrix was residing out of the city. On consideration of the evidence available on record, learned trial Court finding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. The husband of the Prosecutrix was residing out of the city. On consideration of the evidence available on record, learned trial Court finding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1) has concocted a false case at the instance of Suresh (PW 4) who was her closed neighbour and according to the prosecution case, Prosecutrix "S" and Suresh were having relations as brother and sister. 2 days prior to the incident, at the house of the Prosecutrix, apellants had quarrel with Suresh (PW 4) and assaulted him on account of dispute over Rs. 15,000/- which the apellants were owing from Suresh. Learned counsel has submitted that First Information Report Ex. P/1 was lodged at belated stage and the medical evidence is not corroborating the version of the Prosecutrix regarding gang rape. Her version is also not corroborated by the chemical analyst report. It is also submitted that the statement of Prosecutrix is at variance with the First Information Report, case diary statement as well as the statement of Suresh (PW 4) and his mother Prabhabai (PW 5). The prosecution has not examined material witness i.e. the mother-in-law of the Prosecutrix. The statements of these witnesses were recorded after lapse of about one month and for this delay no reasonable and plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution. Learned counsel has submitted that the evidence available on record does not warrant conviction of the apellants for the offence of gang rape. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Dilip and another vs. State of M.P., 2002 ANJ (1) SC 94. In the alternative learned counsel relying on the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Tangirala Venkateswarlu and Another Vs. State of A.P., has submitted on the question of sentence that the apellants are in jail from the date of their arrest and they have completed near about 4 years jail sentence, therefore, they may be sentenced to the period already undergone. On the other hand, Mr. Amitabh Upadhyaya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. On the other hand, Mr. Amitabh Upadhyaya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. On perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that version of the Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1) is far away from the probabilities and natural human conduct vis-a-vis full of material contradictions, omissions and embellishment. She has extremely improved and exaggerated her statement in Court in comparison to the First Information Report, Ex. P/1 and her case diary statement Ex. D/1. The glaring defects in the prosecution case are that according to the Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1) the apellants reached at her house in the mid night at 12 O Clock on 15th November, 2000, at that time, her husband, children and mother-in-law were present in the house. When the apellants knocked at the door, she did not open the door. The apellants got the door opened forcibly by her husband, thereafter, they enquired about Suresh (PW 4). The Prosecutrix and her husband denied the presence of Suresh inside the house upon which they asked the Prosecutrix and her husband to come out to have some talks. The apellants also asked Anandrao, husband of the Prosecutrix, to come out of the house, at that time; Naresh and Shanker were possessing Lathi and Farsi respectively. The apellants insisted Anandrao to come out to have a talk and assaulted him by lathi. Anandrao thereafter clothed him and ran away through the back door of the house. Thereafter, the apellants caught hold the Prosecutrix, "S" whereupon her mother-in-law Sundarbai asked them not to do so. The apellants threatened mother-in-law to keep mum, and forcibly took the Prosecutrix "S" towards Kiln. The Prosecutrix was crying but the apellants did not allow her to cry. She was fallen on the ground twice or thrice. Both the apellants ravished her against her will and consent and threatened her not to lodge report. On the next day, in the morning she went to the house of Suresh (PW 4) and thereafter, went to Police Station and lodged report Ex. P/1. She was sent to Mahila Thana, thereafter, she was sent for medical examination. Both the apellants ravished her against her will and consent and threatened her not to lodge report. On the next day, in the morning she went to the house of Suresh (PW 4) and thereafter, went to Police Station and lodged report Ex. P/1. She was sent to Mahila Thana, thereafter, she was sent for medical examination. In cross-examination, Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1) has stated that first of all she went to Banganga Police Station, Indore where her report was not recorded by the police and the police dropped them (Prosecutrix and Suresh) at Aerodrome Police Station, Indore where they were asked to sit and the police went to "kiln" a place of incident. After half an hour, the police returned and told them that no such incident had occurred there. The Aerodrome Police, after seeing the Prosecutrix, told that she will be medically examined, therefore, she was sent to Mahila Police Station. According to the Prosecutrix, it requires 10 minutes to go from her house to the kiln. This material and important fact that Banganga Police did not record her report and left them to Aerodrome police station, the aerodrome police went to the place of incident and thereafter telling her that no such incident had occurred and sending the Prosecutrix to Mahila Thana, are all missing in the First Information Report. The Prosecution had not examined any police official of Banganga Police Station or Aerodrome Police Station. It is beyond comprehension that a woman will go to Police Station situated in the town like Indore and disclose about the commission of gang rape and the police will not record her first information report, especially when the place of incident was falling within the jurisdiction of said Police Station. There was no reason disclosed by the Prosecutrix for not mentioning all these facts in the First Information Report as well as in her case diary statement. These facts have emerged for the first time in Court when she was examined. The First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore on 16-11-2000 at 6.30 p.m.. In this report, reason for the delay is shown that she was waiting for her husband. Since she did not disclose all these facts in the First Information Report as well as in her case diary statement about their immediately going to the police stations of Banganga and Aerodrome. In this report, reason for the delay is shown that she was waiting for her husband. Since she did not disclose all these facts in the First Information Report as well as in her case diary statement about their immediately going to the police stations of Banganga and Aerodrome. The Police of Mahila Thana, Police Station, did not investigate the matter on this issue. Nisha Reddy (PW 9) has admitted these facts in paragraph 4 and her deposition that the Prosecutrix did not disclose about going to Aerodrome and Banganga Police Station. This witness has also stated that the Prosecutrix alone came to police station for lodging report and in the First Information Report, she had not disclosed the names of Suresh (PW 4), Haushilal (PW 10) and Prabhadevi (PW 5). These facts probabilise the version of defence that because of the incident occurred two days prior at the house of the Prosecutrix for assaulting Suresh (PW 4) with whom she was having relations as brother and sister, a false case was concocted. Prabhadevi, (PW 5) mother of Suresh and Suresh (PW 4) have admitted this fact that Suresh was treating the Prosecutrix as her sister and Prabhadevi was treating the Prosecutrix as her daughter. They were having their houses in the same locality. Prabhadevi (PW 5) has stated that Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1), has come to her shop on 16-11-2000 and disclosed about the incident, at that time his son Suresh and one person were sitting in the shop. She has also stated about the quarrel between the apellants and Suresh (PW 4) and demand of Rs. 15,000/-. This witness has also narrated the story of going to Banganga Police Station and thereafter Aerodrome Police Station. When the Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1) and Prabhadevi (PW 5) could tell this story in Court after about 3-4 months of the incident why they could not disclose all these facts while lodging the First Information Report and giving statements before Mahila Thana Police Station, Indore. This shows that just to explain the delay, they have concocted this story, otherwise, there is no reason if they would have disclosed all these facts, the Police Station Mahila Thana would have not recorded these facts in the First Information Report as well as in their case diary statement. According to Nisha Reddi (PW 9), who recorded Exh. This shows that just to explain the delay, they have concocted this story, otherwise, there is no reason if they would have disclosed all these facts, the Police Station Mahila Thana would have not recorded these facts in the First Information Report as well as in their case diary statement. According to Nisha Reddi (PW 9), who recorded Exh. P/1 First Information Report, the Prosecutrix alone came to Mahila Thana in the evening at 6.00 p.m. she was not accompanied by anybody. The Prosecutrix has stated that on the next day, she disclosed about the incident to Haushilal (PW 10), Prabhadevi (PW 5) and Suresh (PW 4) but this fact is not mentioned in the First Information Report. A.S.I. Sunanda Sharma (PW 12), has admitted this fact that Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1) did not disclose the names of Suresh, Haushilal (PW 10) and Prabhadevi (PW 5), in the First Information Report and in the case diary statement. It would be apposite to mention hear that Sundarbai, mother-in-law of the Prosecutrix was present inside the house when the apellants forcibly entered inside the house and part incident occurred there but Sundarbai was not examined by the Prosecution as witness in Court. The police has recorded the statements of the Prosecutrix and Sundarbai, mother-in-law of the Prosecutrix "S" on 24-12-2000 whereas statements of Suresh (PW 4), Haushilal (PW 10), Prabhadevi (PW 5) and one Uttram Mishra were recorded on 16-12-2000. No reason was assigned by the Investigating Officer Sunanda Sharma (PW 12) regarding this delay of about one month in recording the statements of the Prosecutrix though specific question was put by the defence on this count. The next glaring defect in the prosecution case is that in the First Information Report, the Prosecutrix has stated about an assault by the apellants to her by lathi. In Court statement, she has stated about sustaining of some injuries on her person but according to Dr. Rachna Bagadi (PW 7) no external or internal injuries found on the person of the Prosecutrix. Therefore, on this count the version of the Prosecutrix has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. On the contrary, the medical evidence is at variance with her version. The allegation about commission of sexual intercourse by two persons is also does not appear to be true in view of the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, Exh. 15. Therefore, on this count the version of the Prosecutrix has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. On the contrary, the medical evidence is at variance with her version. The allegation about commission of sexual intercourse by two persons is also does not appear to be true in view of the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, Exh. 15. According to this report, no semen, spermatozoa were present on pubic hair and slide of vaginal swab of the Prosecutrix. The Prosecutrix has stated in her statement that after sexual intercourse she did not take her bath till her medical examination. On her Petticoat and underwear of the apellants, semen and spermatozoa were found but that are of no avail because the Prosecutrix is a married woman and the apellants are also major married persons. The semen and spermatozoa so available were not enough for serological examination. The prosecution story, regarding presence of the husband of the Prosecutrix inside the house in the night, appears to be concocted one. If this story is assumed to be true there was no reason for the husband of the Prosecutrix Anandrao (PW 2) to run away from the house to his village, when he was successfully escaped from the clutches and control of the apellants, and was able to come out of the house, he could have raised alarm in the locality and could have collected persons for his help and for the help of his family members especially when Prabhadevi (PW 5) and Suresh (PW 4) were residing nearby and other houses were also situated in the same locality. Not only this, he could have gone to the nearby Police Station Banganga in whose jurisdiction his house was situated. When he was specifically asked on these questions, he could not reply properly. On the contrary, admitted all these facts which seriously go against his conduct and compel this Court to draw inference that as a matter of fact, he was not present inside the house as stated by the Prosecutrix. Anandrao (PW 2) is the husband of the Prosecutrix and such behaviour is not expected from the husband when his wife, mother and children were in problem and he did not do anything to help them. Anandrao (PW 2) has stated that he returned to his house on 18-11-2000 but his statement was recorded after about a month. Anandrao (PW 2) is the husband of the Prosecutrix and such behaviour is not expected from the husband when his wife, mother and children were in problem and he did not do anything to help them. Anandrao (PW 2) has stated that he returned to his house on 18-11-2000 but his statement was recorded after about a month. This witness has also stated that his wife Prosecutrix "S" and Suresh (PW 4) were having relation like sister-brother and Suresh was having visiting terms with him. He belongs to his village and in Indore he constructed a house near his house. The say of the Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1) is also that she did not know the apellants and their names were disclosed to her by Suresh (PW4) her mouth-witting brother. There is no dispute on the settled legal position that the statement of the Prosecutrix is alone sufficient to convict the culprit but the same must contain ring of truth. The Prosecutrix should not be treated as accomplice, her testimony is also not required to be corroborated by independent particulars if alone is sufficient to place implicit reliance but in the case on hand in view of the aforesaid serious infirmities in the prosecution case as well as the statement of the Prosecutrix which recompletely at variance with the medical report as well as the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the same cannot be considered as the evidence of sterling character. Overall perusal of the statements of the Prosecutrix it clearly reveals the picture that while giving the statement from time to time she has changed her version and modulate just to tally with the medical report, the First Information Report and the statements of other witnesses but in the same breath she has changed her statement on all these points. Looking to the conduct of the Prosecutrix as well as her husband and the admitted position that two days back, at the house of the Prosecutrix, the apellants had quarreled with her mouth-witted brother Suresh (PW 4) to whom the apellants delivered threat for the payment of Rs. 15,000/-. The evidence of Suresh (PW 4) and his mother Prabhadevi (PW 5) to whom the Prosecutrix said to have disclosed the incident on the next date, cannot be treated as independent witnesses. 15,000/-. The evidence of Suresh (PW 4) and his mother Prabhadevi (PW 5) to whom the Prosecutrix said to have disclosed the incident on the next date, cannot be treated as independent witnesses. When the version of the Prosecutrix is doubtful then the statements of Suresh (PW 4) and Prabhadevi (PW 5) would not help the prosecution to strengthen her statement. Prabhadevi (PW 5) has stated that she was told by the Prosecutrix that the apellants came in her house and took her to nearby well and ravished there whereas according to the Prosecutrix, she was taken near kiln. This is also major contradiction between two witnesses regarding place of incident. Haushilal (PW 10) has deposed that the Prosecutrix disclosed before him about the incident but he did not know the place where she was taken by the apellants. According to this witness, his statement was recorded by the police after 8 days and he has denied the recording of his statement after one month. The Investigating Officer ASI (PW 12) in her statement Para 11 has deposed that in a spot map Ex. P/9, she has not mentioned exact distance of the place of incident from the house of the Prosecutrix. She has also admitted that place of incident was full of small pieces of crushed stones. On the date of preparation of spot map she met to Sundarbai, mother-in-law of the Prosecutrix but the witness did not record the statement of said Sundarbai and for not doing so, she has not assigned any reason. Learned trial Court has erred in Para 14 of its judgment in seeking cooperation to the testimony of the Prosecutrix "S" (PW 1) and her husband Anandrao (PW 2) from their police statement recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed above and in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Dilip's case (supra) it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of the Prosecutrix with such serious and glaring defects in the prosecution case for upholding the conviction of the apellants. Therefore, the apellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the apellants for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(g) and 506, Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside. Therefore, the apellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the apellants for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(g) and 506, Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. It is reported that the apellants are in jail since last four years. Trial Court is directed to release the apellants forthwith, if not required in any other case. Final Result : Allowed