Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.7.2006/order of sentence dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Raj Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay affine of Rs.3,000/- under Sec.376 of ipc and in default of payment offline, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a further direction that out of the realized amount of Rs.3,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,500/-will be given to the prosecutor as compensation. Succinctly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 17.3.1999, prosecutor X (name of the victim is not being indicated to prevent her social victimization in view of Premia alias prem Parkash Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal)539 (SC), made statement before SI Sher singh in the terms that "three months prior to the making of her statement, at about 7:30 A. M. , she had gone to the fields for answering the call of nature. When she was on her way back to her house and had reached near a room existing in the field of hari Singh, there the accused Raj Kumar came from the side of Village. 2. He was residing with his sister Simla. He overpowered her (prosecutor) by holding her from her arms and gagged her mouth by placing his hand thereon. She was pushed into the room of Hari Singh, where the accused committed rapeon her against her wishes. When she tried to raise alarm, then again the accused put his hand on her mouth. After committing rape, he fled away from the spot. While fleeing, he asked the prosecutor not to disclose about this occurrence to anyone otherwise her parents would be done to death. Being scared, she did not disclose about this occurrence to any family member. The menstruation of her had stopped about 10-12 days prior to recording of her statement. She disclosed about this incident to her auntmeera Devi wife of Brij Lal about 4-5 days before she made the statement. 3. She was brought to Dr. Pirthi Chand of their Village at his Clinic at Sardulgarh. Promila wife of the said doctor medically examined her and aborted developing fetus. Thereafter, she was kept at the clinic of Dr. Promila and was discharged on the next day. 3. She was brought to Dr. Pirthi Chand of their Village at his Clinic at Sardulgarh. Promila wife of the said doctor medically examined her and aborted developing fetus. Thereafter, she was kept at the clinic of Dr. Promila and was discharged on the next day. When she was in her village, she developed pain in her abdomen. She was brought to Primary Health center, Sardulgarh by her cousin, mother mango Devi and brother Jagsir. On the basis of this statement, the case was registered. The accused was arrested on 20.3.1999. Pirthi Chand and Promila Devi joined investigation on 21.3.1999 and 29.4.1999 respectively. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused Raj Kumar, Dr. Promila devi and Dr. Pirthi Chand. Vide his order dated 4.4.2003, the learned Additional sessions Judge, Bathinda directed that the accused Rajkumar be charged under Section 376 of IPC, whereas his co-accused Dr. Pirthi chand as well as Dr. Promila Devi be charged under Sec.313 of IPC. 4. This order was quashed by this Court qua both the aforesaid doctors. To bring home guilt against the accused Raj Kumar, the prosecution examined the prosecutor PW1, her mother Mango Devi PW2, Dr. Sohan Lal arora PW3, Sher Singh Investigator PW4, Dr. Kulwan Singh PW5, Prem Kumar PW6 and closed its evidence. When examined under section 313 of Cr. P. C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He has put forth that he had been working at Flour mill of Sohan Lal for the last 7-8 years, where mango Devi used to work for thrashing grain. Theft of grains was committed by Mango Devi. 5. This fact was brought to the notice of sohan Lal by the accused: Thereafter, the services of Mango Devi were dispensed with by said Sohan Lal. In order to blackmail the accused, he has been got trapped in this case by the prosecutor as well as her mother. 6. In his defence, he examined DW1 Tarsem singh, DW2 Vinod Kumar and DW3mandeep kumar. After hearing the learned Additional public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Raj Kumar as noticed at the outset Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal. 6. In his defence, he examined DW1 Tarsem singh, DW2 Vinod Kumar and DW3mandeep kumar. After hearing the learned Additional public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Raj Kumar as noticed at the outset Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. To begin with, the learned counsel for the appellant canvassed at the bar that there is inexplicable delay of 3-4 months in getting the case registered. As per Entry no.135 made in Register Mark DD, the prosecutrixhas been shown to be the wife of one Krishan resident of Village and Post Office jhanda Khurd and it is further mentioned in this entry that she was 19years of age. As a matter of fact, the prosecutor was rendered pregnant by said Krishan and to wreak vengeance that the accused- appellant had got dispensed with the services of her mother from the Hour Mill of Sohan Lal, her mother instead of Krishan falsely implicated him. The prosecutor aspw1 has solemnly affirmed that "i had no menstruation period as menstruation was stopped. About two and half months of the incidence, Italked about the same with my aunt (Chachi) Smt. Meera devi wife of Shribrij Lal. My said Chachi further disclosed the incident to my mother. About 10-12 days thereafter, Smt. Bhagi Devi wife of Sahi Ram, my maternal aunt, my mother and Mandeep Kumar, the son of my uncle Brij lalhad taken me to Dr. Pirthi Chand at sardulgarh. " 7. As per this evidence, the prosecutor first narrated the alleged occurrence to Meera Devi, who has been given up on the pretext of her having been won over by the accused appellant. She being the real aunt, by no stretch of speculation would have joined hands with the accused- appellant. Mandeep Kumar dw3, the cousin brother of the prosecutor has also nullified the prosecution story. He being a close relation could not be expected to go to such an extent. Thus, this all is a made-up affair. To tide over these submissions, the learned State Counsel maintained that indeed on the date of occurrence, the prosecutor was 14-15years of age. Mandeep Kumar dw3, the cousin brother of the prosecutor has also nullified the prosecution story. He being a close relation could not be expected to go to such an extent. Thus, this all is a made-up affair. To tide over these submissions, the learned State Counsel maintained that indeed on the date of occurrence, the prosecutor was 14-15years of age. Meera devi PW as well Mandeep Kumar DW being remotely related to the prosecutor would have been gained over by the accusedappellant.1 have well considered the rival contentions. 8. A glance throughex. PO, the birth certificate of the prosecutor purportedly issued by the Additional District Registrar, Births and deaths, Mansa would reveal that she was born on 12.3.1979. As per prosecution story, the occurrence took place about two and a half months before 16.3.1999. The exact date of occurrence has not been disclosed. By calculating, it comes around31.12.1998. Thus on the date of occurrence, the prosecutor was 19 years 9months and 12 days old. It is in her cross-examination that "it is wrong to suggest that I was born on 12.3.1979. Therefore, my certificate of birth showing my date of birth as 12.3.1979 cannot be true and correct. " Appallingly, on the one hand, the prosecutibn has relied upon the aforesaid birth certificate; on the other hand, the prosecutor has obviously described this certificate to be untrue and incorrect. It clearly indicates that she has deposed against the documentary evidence. In contest between the oral as well as documentary evidence, normally the documents are to be believed as they seldom lie. If she could disown her date of birth given in the certificate, she can be expected to go to any extent. It is in her further crossexaminationthat "the accused had spread the blanket till holding me and having shut my mouth with one hand. 9. I am married now for the last about three years. " It is unintelligible and inconceivable as to how the accused would have done all these acts in the alleged manner. It was humanly impossible. It is in her further cross-examination that "said Sohan Lal has got his flour mill installed in his house. Raj kumar, accused used to work-in the said flour Mill of Sohan Lal. Raj Kumar has been working in the said Flour Mill about four years prior to said occurrence. It was humanly impossible. It is in her further cross-examination that "said Sohan Lal has got his flour mill installed in his house. Raj kumar, accused used to work-in the said flour Mill of Sohan Lal. Raj Kumar has been working in the said Flour Mill about four years prior to said occurrence. My mother used to get the wheat grounded on the flour mill of sohan Lal, but I had not been going there. " thus, at least she has admitted one fact that the accused appellant was employed in the said mill to which mother of the prosecutrixused to go though for a different purpose than the one alleged by the accused-appellant. It is in her cross-examination that "when I had left the house in the morning, it was still dark because of the fog and not because ofthe darkness. I had reached the place of occurrence from my house within5-10 minutes. " If it was still dark though due to fog, she being a young girl, in the normal course of events, could not be expected to go for easing out in the open fields. She could pre-conceive that any mishap could take place with her. It is also in her cross-examination that "the accused had dragged forcibly me to the kotha of Rathi Hari Singh. 10. It was a winter day and it was very cold. " when she was being dragged forcibly, she in the normal course of her conduct would have raised hue and cry at the high pitch of her tongue, which would have certainly attracted someone. She has nowhere stated that when she was being dragged, she had raised noise or alarm witha view to attract attention of the public. It is in her examination-in-chief that "raj Kumar accused present in the Court came from the side, which I could not notice but he grappled from hind side and took me into the saidkotha of Hari Singh Rathi. The accused spread his blanket on the ground. He put off my salwar and started doing intercourse with me against my wish and forcibly. After doing the rape on my person, the accused left the spot and threatened me that in case I disclosed about the incident to the members of my family, I will be done to death. The accused spread his blanket on the ground. He put off my salwar and started doing intercourse with me against my wish and forcibly. After doing the rape on my person, the accused left the spot and threatened me that in case I disclosed about the incident to the members of my family, I will be done to death. He told me that in case i disclosed about the incident to the member of my family, they will not spare me. Out of fear, I did not talk about the incident with my family members. " Assuming that the accused-appellant had held out the alleged threat, but when she came to her house, such threat had ceased and it was no longer hovering over her head. That being so, there was no luculent reason for her to hide the occurrence in her heart for a period extending over more than two and a half months. She has further testified that "after the said incident, I had no menstruation period as the menstruation was stopped about two and half months of the incident. 11. I talked about the same with my aunt (Chachi) Smt. Meera Devi wife of Brij Lal only. " in the common course of human conduct, such a long drawn silence was unexpected of her. Had it been verily a case of rape, she in all human probabilities would have unhesitatingly narrated this occurrence to her mother at least, soon after having returned home. She would have not pocketed it silently, because herhonour was involved in it. These facts when put together lead to an illation that if it is presumed that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her, then she was a consenting party. As per entry No.135 made in the register Markdd, the prosecutor was aged about 19 years and was the wife of one krishan, of Village and Post Office Jhanda Khurd though the prosecution case is other wise. Mandeep Kumar DW3 has deposed that prosecutor is the daughter of my uncle (elder brother of the father Devi Lal ). I had come to know that my said cousin sister prosecutor had an abdominal pain, who at that time was aged 19-20 years old. 12. I then visited the house of my cousinprosecutrix and I along with Smt. Mango devi mother of prosecutor, Smt. Bhago Devi a panchayat member took prosecutor to sardulgarh todr. I had come to know that my said cousin sister prosecutor had an abdominal pain, who at that time was aged 19-20 years old. 12. I then visited the house of my cousinprosecutrix and I along with Smt. Mango devi mother of prosecutor, Smt. Bhago Devi a panchayat member took prosecutor to sardulgarh todr. Promila Wahniwal. Dr. Promia wahniwal told that she does not indulgein performing abortion. Prosecutor was bleeding from uterus. Irequested Dr. Wahniwal that the life of prosecutor was in danger and she should perform the abortion of prosecutor. Dr. Wahniwal advised to goin for ultra sound. Thereafter, Dr. Waniwal had taken Promila devi to Sirs for getting the ultra sound performed. After the ultra sound report, the doctor performed the abortion into the uterus of Kamla Devi. Dr. Urmila Wahniwal had obtained my consent for performing the abortion. The writing was made in my presence. I have seen the said writings Ex. DA anddb which bears my signatures. I had told a lie before Dr. Urmila. Wahniwalthat prosecutor was married with Krishan Lal because the doctor refused to admit prosecutor as she was unmarried. 13. Then I asked the doctor that he may record that she is married with Krishan. Prosecutor had told that she had relation with krishan Lal. " It is in his cross-examination that "the character of my sister prosecutor is immoral. Mango told me that somebody has committed rape upon her. I had not asked my aunt as to who committed the rape on the person of prosecutor. My sister prosecutor had not told me as to who had committed rape upon her, nor I asked about the same. Volunteered, Smt. Mango Devi had told me that the rape was committed by Krishan chand. Krishan Chand is not related to Mango devi. Smt. Meera Devi is my mother. Krishan chand was never summoned by anybody during investigation. When I came to know about the rape to have been committed upon the person of prosecutrix, I had no talk with her. " If there had been truth in the prosecution version, this witness being closely related to the prosecutrix would have certainly come forward to espouse the cause of his cousin sister i. e. , the prosecutrix. As emerges out of his above extracted cross-examination, the prosecutrix is of immoral character. Furthermore, her mother did not disclose the name of the rapist to him. As emerges out of his above extracted cross-examination, the prosecutrix is of immoral character. Furthermore, her mother did not disclose the name of the rapist to him. 14. The accused- appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix; there was no hitch for Mango Devi, mother of the prosecutrix to disclose the name of the appellant to this witness. According to this witness, the rape was committed by Krishan Chand. There appears to be substance in this evidence when looked in the background of entry no.135 recorded in register Mark DDwherein prosecutrix X has been shown to be the wife of Krishan. There is no medical evidence showing that the prosecutrix was raped. Intercourse bya man with a woman is not always unlawful. Further, intercourse by a man with a woman of more than 16 years would not be unlawful, if it is committed with her will or consent. Of course, the conviction in rape cases can be recorded on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix. But herein, in view of the peculiar facts, corroborative evidence has to be insisted upon. There is no such evidence showing that the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination soon after the alleged occurrence or within a reasonable time. 15. As ruled by the Apex Court in re: Rajoo and Others Vs. State of M. P. , 2009 (1) Recent criminal Reports (Criminal) 310 (S. C.), "the statement of prosecutrix should be evaluated at par with that of injured witness, who will not tell a lie, but it can never be presumed that her statement is a gospel truth. " If the prosecutrix had conceived from the loins of the accused- appellant, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have established this fact by way of D. N. A. Test. The prosecution has not apportioned any reason for hesitating to go in for the same. The evidence of Dr. Sohan Lal Arora PW3 reads as under:- On 16.3.1999, I medico legally examined prosecutrix Daughter of Devi Lal resident of Jhanda Khurd P. S. Sardulgarh,who was brought by her mother Mango Devi. The patient was conscious. Her BP was 110/80 mm of Hg. PR was 86 p. m. regular. 16 I found the following injuries on her person:- i) She complained of pain in the abdomen in the pelvic area. Patient also complained of bleeding per vaginal. The patient was conscious. Her BP was 110/80 mm of Hg. PR was 86 p. m. regular. 16 I found the following injuries on her person:- i) She complained of pain in the abdomen in the pelvic area. Patient also complained of bleeding per vaginal. There was history of D and C (Dilatation and Curettage)done two days ago. On examination, per abdomen - Abdomen was soft, tenderness was present in the pelvic area, and bowel sounds were present. No particular mass felt. External genitalia: No external injury was present on the external genitalia. Per Vaginal (done in the presence of Smt. Pushpa Devi staff Nurse) - Cervical dilation was about one finger. Mild bleeding with foul smelling discharge was present per vaginal. Injury was kept under observations caused by blunt weapon within the probable duration of two days. " It is in the cross-examination of Mango devi PW2 that "i have never got my wheat grounded on the flour mill of Sohan Lal," whereas her daughter - prosecutrixs statement runs counter to it. It is in her farther cross-examination that "it is neither a fact, nor I got it recorded in my said statement that my daughter was pregnant and her husband was in the service of Military and she was residing with me. " When she was confronted with the portion A to A1 of her statement Mark DB, it was found so recorded therein. She further stated that it is neither a fact, nor I got recorded in the said statement before Dr. Pirthi Chand that in case during the treatment of my daughter any mishap takes place, I shall be responsible for the same and in case the child died, I shall be responsible. When she was confronted with portion B to B1 of Mark DB, it was found so recorded therein. In the ultimate analysis, it boils down that if we proceed on the assumption that the accused- appellant had bedded with the prosecutrix, then it was a consensual sexual intercourse. If we go by the evidence offhanded Kumar DW3, then it was one Krishan Chand, who had committed rape on the prosecutrix. There is no suggestion to this witness that he being inimically disposed of towards the complainant party has deposed so. 17 He has testified in clear and unambiguous terms that the prosecutrix had told him that she had relations with Krishan Chand. There is no suggestion to this witness that he being inimically disposed of towards the complainant party has deposed so. 17 He has testified in clear and unambiguous terms that the prosecutrix had told him that she had relations with Krishan Chand. This witness being the first cousin of the prosecutrix would have not stated so. It is a celebrated dictum of law that if two views are reasonably possible on the adduced evidence, then the one favorable to the accused has to be adopted by the Court. Thus, from whatever angle, the matter may be viewed; the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge. As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal is accepted setting aside the impugned judgment/ order of sentence. The accusedappellantis hereby acquitted of the charged offence by giving benefit of reasonable doubt.