Judgment :- 1. A1, A3 to A4 are the Appellants in the above Appeals. The Appellants challenged their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, by the judgment dated 29.07.2009, in S.C. No.666 of 2004 convicting the Appellants as hereunder: Accused Conviction under Section Sentence A1 376 (1), IPC To undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year’ Rigorous Imprisonment A3 366, IPC To undergo five years’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. A4 376(1) r/w 109, IPC 376(1) r/w 511, IPC To undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. To undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default, to undergo six months, rigorous imprisonment. A5 376(1) r/w 109, IPC To undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months imprisonment. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that A2, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment has not preferred any Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence and he has already served the sentence and released from the prison. 3. The background facts of the case in a nutshell are hereunder: (i) P.W.1 is the prosecutrix; P.W.4 is the wife of A1. P.W.1 is the resident of Lalpattai and she has studied upto 9th standard. She lost her father. She is having a sister. Her mother married another person and settled at Pondicherry. P.W.1 was studying in the school by staying in a hostel and thereafter, she was staying at her grandmother’s house at Lalpattai. P.W.1’s uncle and aunt were also residing in the same house. She was working as a maid servant in a house at Lalpattai and she was getting monthly salary of Rs.50/-. P.W.1’s sister was working at Chennai in a house and she was getting a salary of Rs.1,500/-. P.W.1’s uncle and aunt suggested that she can also get more salary by getting a job at Chennai. Therefore, P.W.1 left for Chennai. (ii) On reaching Chennai Koyambedu on 18.07.2003, P.W.1 left for the beach and she was wandering near Anna Memorial. P.W.1’s sister was working at Chennai in a house and she was getting a salary of Rs.1,500/-. P.W.1’s uncle and aunt suggested that she can also get more salary by getting a job at Chennai. Therefore, P.W.1 left for Chennai. (ii) On reaching Chennai Koyambedu on 18.07.2003, P.W.1 left for the beach and she was wandering near Anna Memorial. At that time, A2 came there in an Auto and questioned her as to where she wants to go. But initially she has not given any reply. Thereafter, she informed him that she has to meet her sister who was working at Porur. P.W.1 has also told A2 that she was not having the address of her sister. A2 told her that it is not possible to search P.W.1’s sister without any address. Thereafter, A2 told her that he would get a job if she comes to his house. P.W.1 accompanied A2 in his auto and A2 took P.W.1 to A3. P.W.1 informed A3 that she has to come to meet her sister at Porur for getting a job. A3 informed P.W.1 that she is having a brother and he is running album shop and she would get a job in that shop. A3 has also told her that her brother would take care of her. A2 and A3 made P.W.1 to wait in a tea stall and went to album shop. A5 was also found at the shop. Thereafter, A3 informed P.W.1 that her brother had gone to the hospital with his wife and he would come after sometime and took P.W.1 to a cinema. (iii) After watching the movie, A3 brought P.W.1 to the album shop of A1 and thereafter, left from the shop saying that she has to take care of her daughter, who was sleeping at the platform. A5 told P.W.1 that it would not look nice for P.W.1, being a girl, to wait in a shop during night hours and asked her to go inside the shop and sit in a room and accordingly, P.W.1 entered into the room and sat in that room. At that time A1 came and informed P.W.1 that he has given Rs.50/- to his sister A3. P.W.1 informed A1 that A3 has left for the house of A1 saying A1’s wife will take of her. A4 was listening a song from the tape recorder and he has increased its volume. At that time A1 came and informed P.W.1 that he has given Rs.50/- to his sister A3. P.W.1 informed A1 that A3 has left for the house of A1 saying A1’s wife will take of her. A4 was listening a song from the tape recorder and he has increased its volume. A5 partially closed the shutter of the shop. Thereafter, A1 is said to have forcibly removed the clothes of P.W.1 and despite her resistance committed the offence of rape and left from the said room. Thereafter, A4 made an attempt to commit the offence of rape on her. At that time, the shutters were opened and A4 and A5 ran away from the shop. (iv) P.W.2, the Police Constable, attached to D-1 Police Station, received the information over phone on 18.07.2003 at 11.30 p.m. to the effect that three persons committing rape on a girl at Sai Ram Album Shop. When P.W.2 enquired about the person, who has informed him over the phone, the said person has not given any particulars. Thereafter, P.W.2 went to Sai Ram Album Shop and found the shutters was partially opened, and lights were burning inside the shop. P.W.2 and another Constable one Mariappan lifted the shutter. At that time, three persons ran away from the shop. P.W.2 along with the Constable Mariappan chased the Accused. But they were not able to catch them. Thereafter, P.W.2 found P.W.1 was sitting on a mat in a nude condition. P.W.1 narrated about the occurrence of P.W.2. P.W.1 stated to P.W.2 that A1 has committed rape on her. A4 attempted to commit rape and A5 was guarding outside the shop. P.W.2 asked P.W.1 to put her dress and thereafter, brought her to the Police Station at 12.00 midnight. (v) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, came to the D-1 Police Station, and received the Written Report, Ex P-1, from P.W.1 on 19.07.2003 at 00.30 hours. He registered the case in Crime No.1215 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 366-A and 376 r/w 34, IPC. Ex.P.18 is the First Information Report. (vi) P.W.12 took up the investigation and examined P.W.1. He went to the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. on 19.07.2003 and prepared the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.19 and the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2. He has made arrangements to take photographs, Ex.P.15 and P.15. Ex.P.18 is the First Information Report. (vi) P.W.12 took up the investigation and examined P.W.1. He went to the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. on 19.07.2003 and prepared the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.19 and the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2. He has made arrangements to take photographs, Ex.P.15 and P.15. He recovered from the scene of occurrence, viz., Sai Ram Album Shop, M.O.1, Mat, M.O.2., Green colour bed sheet and M.O.3, 7 Nirodh packets. He examined the other witnesses. P.W.12 has also recovered the clothes of P.W.1 by giving alternative clothes to her. P.W.1 was sent to Kasthuribai Gandhi Hospital with a memo for medical examination. (vii) The Doctor, P.W.11, attached to the Kasthuribai Gandhi Hospital, examined P.W.1 on 19.07.2003 at 8.30 p.m. Ex.P.17 is the Accident Register, in which it is stated by the Doctor as hereunder: “O/E Patient Concious, oriented not anemic, afebrile, vital signs stable, no obvious external injuries except a small abrasion to have been made by big toe nail by Vivek (A1). Local Exam: Small abrasion of 1 cm length on the inner aspect of labia minora rights left on the forchette. Hymen appears to be oedematous, so tears could not be made out. Introitus and vagina admit 1 finger which is very painful and smear from fornix taken and public hair sample taken for examination. After applying lignocain jelly speculum examination done and anterior vaginal wall appears to be congested and cervix could not be visualized because of severe pain.” (viii) P.W.12 has made a requisition to XIII Metropolitan Magistrate for sending the victim P.W.1 to Reformatory and Protective Home. P.W.12 sent the victim P.W.1 to Government for medical examination. Meanwhile he has arrested A1, A3, A4 and A5 on 20.07.2003. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of A1 under Ex.P.22, he recovered the clothes of A1, M.Os.4 to 6. Thereafter, he produced the Accused before the Court for remand. On the same evening, he has arrested A2. He has made requisition to the Magistrate Court to sent A1 for medical examination. (ix) The Doctor, P.W.9, examined P.W.1 on 21.07.2003. She has issued Ex.P.13, Age Certificate stating that P.W.1 is aged above 16 years and below 20 years. She has issued Ex.P.14. In Ex.P.14, she has stated as hereunder:” “Moderately nourished female individual Secondary sexual characters are normal. Examination of Private parts: Vulva … Normal Vagina … Admits one finger. (ix) The Doctor, P.W.9, examined P.W.1 on 21.07.2003. She has issued Ex.P.13, Age Certificate stating that P.W.1 is aged above 16 years and below 20 years. She has issued Ex.P.14. In Ex.P.14, she has stated as hereunder:” “Moderately nourished female individual Secondary sexual characters are normal. Examination of Private parts: Vulva … Normal Vagina … Admits one finger. Reddish laceration ½ x 1/8 cm. on the left side. Painful and tender on touch. Hymen … Healed laceration in 3,5,7, 9 ‘o clock position. Fourcette … Normal Perinium … Intact Cervix … Normal.” (x) The Doctor, P.W.7, examined A1 on 21.07.2003. He has issued the Certificate, Ex.P.8. In Ex.P.8, he has stated that “there is nothing to suggest that he is impotent.” (xi) P.W.12, in continuation of his investigation, examined the Doctor, P.W.9 and others. On 25.8.2003, P.W.12, examined the uncle and aunt of P.W.1. He has made a requisition to the Magistrate for sending the Materials Object for chemical examination under Ex.P.26. He has received the Forensic Lab Reports, Exs.P.10 and P.11. He has also received the Age Certificate, Ex.P.13. On completion of investigation, P.W.12 laid the charge-sheet against the Accused for the offence under Sections 366, 376(1) r/w 511, IPC and 34, IPC. 4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 12, filed Exs.P.1 to 12, filed Exs.P1 to P.26 and marked M.Os.1 to 9. 5. When the Accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, all the Accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. A1 has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A1 further stated that he is innocent and on behalf of the victim girl (P.W.1) Rs.50/- was received as per the arrangement as advance and P.W.1 agreed to come during night. A2 has stated that he has taken P.W.1 in Auto as she has called him and dropped at Shanthi Theatre and left the place and he has been falsely implicated in this case. A3 stated that she was selling tickets in a theatre. She has further stated that she has met P.W.1 and on enquiry, P.W.1 told her that she is from Pondichery and she came to Chennai for earning money. A3 stated that she was selling tickets in a theatre. She has further stated that she has met P.W.1 and on enquiry, P.W.1 told her that she is from Pondichery and she came to Chennai for earning money. A4 stated that he is a friend of A1, he has further stated he, along with A5, went to All Women Police Station, to see A1. A5 has stated he, along with A4 went to All Women Police Station, to see A1. 6. Mr. S. Shunmugavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A5, would submit that the only allegation leveled against A5 is that he was guarding outside the album shop of A1 and he has partially closed the shutter. But the prosecution has not adduced any reliable evidence to substantiate such allegation. It is contended that though it is alleged in the Complaint that both A4 and A5 have raised the volume of the tape recorder, P.W.1 has stated in her evidence implicating A5 only for partially closing the shutters of the shop. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that even in respect of such allegation of A5 partially closing the shutters of the shop, P.W.1 has not stated so during the course of investigation to the Investigating Officer, P.W.12. It is further contended that P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, has categorically admitted that T.V., V.C.D. and Tape Recorder were not available at the room of A1 and as such, even the allegation in the Complaint to the effect that A4 and A5 raised the volume of the Tape Recorder is false. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that there is not an iota of evidence available on record against A5. 7. Mr. S. Ananthanarayanan, learned Counsel for the Appellant/A1 and A3, while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction, would vehemently contend that it is a clear case of consent and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 376, IPC by adducing clear and consistent evidence and also put forward the following contentions: (i) As per the Medical Certificate, Ex.P.13 issued by the Doctor, P.W.9, the victim girl, P.W.1, is stated to be aged above 18 years and below 20 years and as such, she is a major and matured girl. (ii) Though P.W.1 claimed that she has resisted A1 from committing the offence of sexual assault and further she has sustained abrasions throughout her body by the nails of A1, the Doctors, P.Ws.9 and 11, who have examined P.W.1, have not found even a scratch of her body and there is not marks of violence found by them. It is contended that the Medical Certificate, Ex.P.14. issued by the Doctor, P.W.9, discloses that the victim girl was accustomed to sexual intercourse. The learned Counsel would contend that the victim girl, P.W.1, was examined by the Doctor, P.W.11 on 19.7.2003, i.e. on the very next day of the occurrence. The Doctor, P.W.9 examined P.W.1 on 21.7.2003. But both the Doctors have not found any visible external injuries or marks of violence on P.W.1. (iii) Though P.W.1 claimed that she has come to Chennai for meeting her sister, she has categorically admitted that she has not brought the address of her sister and as such, her version is unacceptable and unbelievable. It is further contended that even as per the admitted version of P.W.1 she was wandering at beach near Anna Memorial soon after her arrival at Chennai, Koyambedu from Pondicherry and thereafter, accompanied A2 on her will and wish and further she has accompanied A3 and at no point of time, she expressed her unwillingness to go along with them and ultimately as per her version, she was waiting for a long time for the arrival of A1 at his shop and as such her conduct makes it crystal clear that P.W.1 could not have come to Chennai for searching a job, but only for other illegal purpose and it is a case of consent. (iv) There is serious doubt about the genuineness of the report-Ex.P1, which is said to have been given by P.W.1 as it is the version of P.W.1 that she has narrated about the occurrence soon after the arrival of P.W.2, the Police Constable, whereas, P.W.2 has stated that he has not recorded any statement from P.W.1 and there is no explanation given by P.W.2 for not recording the statement from P.W.1 and such version is unbelievable and it is more probable that the prosecution could have suppressed the earliest report recorded from P.W.1 by P.W.2. (v) P.W.1 has categorically stated in her chief-examination that she was taken to Women Police Station and she was sitting throughout the night in the said Women Police Station and she was sitting throughout the night in the said Police Station and thereafter, P.W.12 came and asked her to write the report by giving a pen and thereafter, she has written the report, Ex.P1. But P.W.12 has stated that on reading D-1 Police Station on 19.7.2003 at 12.30 mid night, he received the Written Report, Ex.P1, from P.W.1 at 1.30 a.m. This serious infirmity and inconsistency between the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 12 demonstrated that Ex.P1 itself is a fabricated document and as such, the entire prosecution case is liable to be rejected. (vi) It is contended that as far as A3 is concerned, even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, she was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence at the shop of A1 and P.W.1 has willingly accompanied A3 to the movie and thereafter, came to the shop of A1 with A3 and P.W.1 was waiting there for the arrival of A1. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/A4 would contend that P.W.1 has alleged that A4 has raised the volume of the tape recorder at the time of occurrence. But the said version is proved to be false as per the categorical admission of the Investigating Officer, P.W.12 to the effect that there is no Tape Recorder found at the room of A1. It is further contended that though it is alleged by P.W.1 that A4 attempted to commit sexual assault on her, she has admitted in her cross-examination that A4 has not made any attempt by removing his clothes. 9. Per contra, Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), would submit that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence through P.W.1 and the Doctors, P.Ws.9 and 11. It is contended that the Doctor, P.W.9 and 11. It is contended that the Doctor, P.W.11 has found an abrasion on P.W.1 which corroborates the version of P.W.1. It is further contended that there is no legal bar for relying on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, P.W.1. It is contended that the evidence of P.W.10 is quite natural and there is no infirmity or inconsistency in her evidence. It is contended that the Doctor, P.W.11 has found an abrasion on P.W.1 which corroborates the version of P.W.1. It is further contended that there is no legal bar for relying on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, P.W.1. It is contended that the evidence of P.W.10 is quite natural and there is no infirmity or inconsistency in her evidence. The learned Government Advocate would submit that though there are certain discrepancies in the prosecution case, the same would not affect the main case of the prosecution. 10. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contention put forward by either side and also thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 11. There is no two opinion that the offence of rape is serious one and it is an heinous crime. It is needless to state that such offence is not only against an individual but against the society. Therefore, such offence has to dealt with an iron hand. But at the same time, the Court has to guard against false implications of innocent persons. Therefore, this Court is shouldered with the onerous responsibility of scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution with great care and caution. 12. At the outset, it is to be stated that there is no legal impediment for placing reliance solely on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix. It is also held by the Honourable Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, Air 1990 SC 658 has held that, - “16. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that the evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the valuation of her evidence as in the case of an injured Complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. …. Ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix must carry the same weight as is attached to an injured person who is a victim of violence, unless there are special circumstances which call for greater caution, in which case it would be safe to act on her testimony if there is independent evidence lending assurance to her accusation.” 13. The Honourable Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 (2) SCC 384 has held that, - “The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an Accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.” Therefore, it is well settled that there is no legal impediment to place reliance on the sole testimony of the evidence of the prosecutrix provided such evidence inspires the confidence of the Court and such evidence is free from infirmities, inconsistencies and improbabilities and the said evidence should be reliable and acceptable for convicting the Accused. By keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the decisions cited supra in respect of the reliability of the sole and solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, this Court has to test the credibility of the version of P.W.1. 14. On the outset, it is to be stated that the version of P.W.1 demonstrates that she is not appearing to be the witness of sterling quality. It is seen that she has lost her father and her mother married again and deserted her. Thereafter, she was living along with her grandmother. It is her version that she was advised by her uncle and aunt to go the Chennai for searching a job with good salary like her sister, who is working as servant maid in a house and getting a salary of Rs.1,500/-. It is the specific version of P.W.1 that she left Pondicherry and reached Chennai only for the purpose of meeting her sister, who is working at Porur, Chennai. But P.W.1 has categorically stated even in her chief-examination that she has not brought the address of her sister and she has not made any attempt to get the address of her sister from her uncle or aunt or from any other person. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is not the purpose for P.W.1 to meet her sister and thereafter, try to get a job in any house. On the other hand, it is relevant to note that the conduct of P.W.1 even as per her admitted version that soon after her arrival at Chennai Koyambedu, she has boarded into a bus and reached beach and she was wandering near Anna Memorial. 15. It is curious to note that while P.W.1 was wandering near Anna Memorial, she had readily and willingly accompanied A2 in an Auto and thereafter she met A3 and she was going wherever A3 wants her to accompany with her. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 admittedly accompanied A3 and went to a movie and thereafter, she came to the shop of A1 along with A3. It is the version of P.W.1 that she was waiting for the arrival of A1 for a long time and that too at wee hours of the night. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 admittedly accompanied A3 and went to a movie and thereafter, she came to the shop of A1 along with A3. It is the version of P.W.1 that she was waiting for the arrival of A1 for a long time and that too at wee hours of the night. It is the prosecution case that A1 has arrived at his shop by 11.30 p.m. It is pertinent to note that she was not confined by anyone and even as per the admitted version of P.W.1, A5, who was standing near the shop, was keeping quiet and he has not indulged in misbehaving with her. It is further seen that after the arrival of A1, P.W.1 herself informed A1 that A3 has left for A1’s house stating A1’s wife would take care of her. The fact remains that she is a matured girl and she is aged above 18 years and below 20 years as per the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution and nothing prevented P.W.1 to leave that place or to raise hue and cry. But the fact remains that she has readily and willingly accompanied with A1 by going inside the shop. There is no explanation from P.W.1 as to the reason for her to enter inside the shop of A1 during such odd hours. Considering all these totality of circumstances and sequence of events and the conduct of P.W.1, this Court is of the considered view by no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that A1 has committed the offence of rape on her. 16. The version of P.W.1 is also falsified by the medical evidence. The facts remains that neither the Doctor, P.W.9 nor the Doctor, P.W.11 has opined that she was subjected to rape. There is absolutely no marks of violence found by both the Doctors. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 was subjected to medical examination immediately on the next day of occurrence. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 18.7.2003 at 11.30 p.m. and she was subjected to medical examination on the next day i.e. on 19.7.2003. The version of P.W.1 in her chief-examination is to the effect that she has resisted and fighting and as a result, she has sustained nail injuries throughout her body. But, as already pointed out, a perusal of the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor, Ex. The version of P.W.1 in her chief-examination is to the effect that she has resisted and fighting and as a result, she has sustained nail injuries throughout her body. But, as already pointed out, a perusal of the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor, Ex. Ps.14 and 17 makes it crystal clear that there is no marks of violence and as such, the version of P.W.1 is also falsified by the medical evidence. On the other hand, the circumstances and the conduct of A1, as already pointed out, coupled with the medical evidence would probabilise the defence theory to the effect that this is a case of consent. 17. At the juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka, 2003 SCC (Cri) 775. The Honourable Apex Court has held in the said decision that, - “The Court also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence each and every ingredient of the offence, absence.” Therefore, it is crystal clear as per the Principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the decision cited supra, it is the burden of the prosecution not only to prove each and every ingredient of the offence of rape, but also the absence of consent being one of them. 18. As far as the case on hand is concerned, as already pointed out, the conduct of P.W.1 right from the beginning of her arrival at Chennai, and thereafter, wandering at beach near Anna Memorial and voluntarily and willingly accompanying with A2 and A3 and went to the extent of going to the movie and thereafter, waiting for a long time, i.e., upon 11.30 p.m. for the arrival of A1 in his shop and after the arrival of A1 willing by accompanying A1 inside the shop and added to all these sequence of events, the absence of marks of violence on her as per the medical evidence of the Doctor, P.Ws.9 and 11 would make it crystal clear that P.W.1 is a consenting party. It is also to be reiterated that the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination immediately on the next day morning after the occurrence. 19. It is also to be reiterated that the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination immediately on the next day morning after the occurrence. 19. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that A1 has come forward with the categorical version, even while he was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that he has categorically stated to the effect that P.W.1 was arranged for money. The same version was also given by A3 while she was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. such being the position, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence of this Court and as such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable and untrustworthy. 20. In view of the conduct of P.W.1 even as per the admitted case of the prosecution and for the reasons already assigned by this Court earlier, this Court has no hesitation to hold that she is not a witness of sterling quality on whose sole testimony a conviction can be sustained as held by the Honourable Apex Court in Ramdas v. State of Maharastra, 2006 AIR SCW 5675. 21. Yet another disturbing feature in the prosecution case is the serious doubt raised about the genuineness of Ex.P.1 to P.W.12. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.1 is a written report, and whether P.W.1 would be in a position to write such a report itself is highly doubtful. It is seen that P.W.2, the Police Constable, has categorically stated that he has received the information over the phone from a person to the effect that three persons are said to have committed the sexual assault on P.W.1 at Sai Ram Album Shop at 11.30 p.m., and found the victim inside the shop and three persons ran away from the shop. It is the version of P.W.2 that he has chased the three persons, but he was not able to catch them. It is the further version of P.W.2 that P.W.1 has stated that A1 has committed rape on her and A4 made an attempt to commit rape and A5 was standing outside and guarding. But curiously in spite of such information was said to have been given by P.W.1 to P.W.2, as stated above, P.W.2 has not chosen to record the Statement. But curiously in spite of such information was said to have been given by P.W.1 to P.W.2, as stated above, P.W.2 has not chosen to record the Statement. Thereafter, P.W.2 is said to have taken P.W.1 to D-1 Police Station at 12.00 midnight. This is his version in the chief examination. But in the cross-examination, P.W.2 has changed his version and stated that P.W.1 was taken to women Police Station at Kosa Hospital and she was kept there throughout the night. It is admitted by P.W.2 that she was not taken to the hospital immediately. 22. P.W.1 has also stated in her chief-examination that she was taken to All Women Police Station and she was kept there throughout the night and thereafter, P.W.12 came there and instructed her to write the Report – Ex.P1. On the other hand, P.W.12, has stated that while he was at D-1 Police Station, he has received a Written Report – Ex.P1, from P.W.1 on 19.7.2003 at 12.30 mid night and thereafter, he has registered the case. In the chief-examination, he has not made a whisper that P.W.2 bringing and producing the prosecutrix, P.W.1 before him at D-1 Police Station. The version of P.W.12 is totally contrary to the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. Two important aspects to be borne out through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 12. Firstly, the categorical version of P.Ws.1 and 2 makes it crystal clear that P.W.1 has already given a statement to P.W.2 and P.W.2 had deliberately burked or suppressed the said earliest report. The version of P.W.2 to the effect that he has not chosen to record the statement of P.W.1 is unbelievable and unacceptable. Secondly, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 makes it crystal clear that the Written Report, Ex.P1, could not have been given by P.W.1 at 12.30 mid night to P.W.12 at D-1 Police Station in view of the specific and definite admission of P.Ws.1 and 2 to the effect that P.W.1 was kept in the All Women Police Station, Kosa Hospital throughout the night, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever forthcoming either from P.W.2 or from P.W.12 as to how P.W.1 was produced before the D-1 Police Station at mid night. It is also curious to note that as to why P.W.12, being the Investigating Officer, has instructed P.W.1 to write the report on her own instead of enquiring and recording the statement from P.W.1. All these serious infirmities raise serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex.P1 and as such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Ex.P1 is nothing but a fabricate document. 23. The Honourable Apex Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, 1980 (4) SCC 425 , held as hereunder: “…….. The entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any number of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence…..” In view of the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, this Court having come to the conclusion that the report, Ex.P.1 is a fabricated one, the entire prosecution case would collapse. Therefore, it is very clear that the prosecution has not come forward with a true version and it is most unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.1. 24. As far as A2 and A3 are concerned, even as per the admitted version of the prosecution, both of them were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence. As already pointed out, P.W.1 willingly and voluntarily accompanied with A2, who is an Auto driver, and thereafter, with A3. No other incriminating materials available against them to implicate on this case. 25. Now coming to the role said to have been played by A4 and A5, it is seen that A4 and A5 alleged to have raised the volume of Tape Recorder at the time of commission of the alleged offence of rape by A1 and A5 had also partially closed the shutters of the shop. It is pertinent to note that P.W.12 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the tape recorder was not at all found the room of A1 and as such, the question of raising the volume of the Tape Recorder does not arise and the version of P.W.1 is unbelievable and unacceptable. 26. Yet another allegation made against A4 is to the effect that he has removed his dress and made an attempt to commit the offence of rape on P.W.1. 26. Yet another allegation made against A4 is to the effect that he has removed his dress and made an attempt to commit the offence of rape on P.W.1. But P.W.1 herself categorically admitted in her cross-examination that A4 has not removed his dress after A1 left the shop. 27. Regarding the allegation made against A5 for partially closing the shutters of the shop, it is pertinent to note that P.W.1 has not stated so during the course of investigation to the Investigating Officer, P.W.12 as per the admission of P.W.12 in his cross-examination. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that P.W.1 has also admitted in her cross-examination that while she was waiting for the arrival of A1, A5 has not made any attempt to misbehave with her. Considering all these factors, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against A1, A3, A4 and A5. 28. In view of the above said infirmities, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities, this Court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, these Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, made in S.C.No.666/2004 dated 29.7.2005 are hereby set aside and the Appellants are acquitted. Fine amounts paid, if any, are hereby directed to be refunded to the Appellants. Bail bonds executed, if any, shall stand cancelled.