JUDGMENT C.R. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.01.04 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. ST (WT/A) No. 103 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Appellant has come up with this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. H. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor, for the State and perused the materials on record. 4. The prosecution case as revealed at the trial, in brief, may be stated as follows: Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar, with his family, used to live in the house of accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas (since absconder) at village Ganki under Khowai PS and his minor daughter (hereinafter called the victim girl), aged about 15 years, was a student of Class-VI in Krishna Pathsala School. On 9.6.99, at about 10.30 a.m., when the victim girl was proceeding to her school, she met Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, who was standing with another woman, namely Smt. Debi Ghosh Biswas in front of her school. Smt. Debi Ghosh Biswas persuaded her to accompany them to visit one of their friend's house and, on being assured by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas that he would bring her back to the school in time, she joined them by riding on the scooter driven by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. But Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas instead of going to their friend's house, forcefully took her to his quarter at Agartala by threatening her with a dagger. After arriving in the quarter of Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, she found Sri Narayan Debnath i.e. the Appellant, with whom she had love affairs. On the said night, the Appellant with assurance that he would marry her had sexual intercourse with her. On the following morning, the Appellant had given Rs. 300/- to Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas to purchase vermilion, cones and sari etc. for arranging the marriage and left the said quarter with the word that he would return in the evening and marry the victim girl. But the Appellant failed to return to keep his promise. On the following morning, the Appellant had given Rs. 300/- to Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas to purchase vermilion, cones and sari etc. for arranging the marriage and left the said quarter with the word that he would return in the evening and marry the victim girl. But the Appellant failed to return to keep his promise. Accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, who had bought the said articles compelled the victim girl, by showing a dagger, to wear the said dresses and committed rape on her several times and kept her in confinement for five days during which period, he committed rape on her. An information regarding missing of the victim girl was lodged with the Khowai PS by the father of the victim girl. The mother of the victim girl, on being informed by the Appellant that he had found her in the quarter of Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, rushed to the quarter of Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and found the victim girl being confined in the said quarter. Accordingly, she returned home and informed her husband and police. On the basis of such information, police recovered the victim girl from the house of Sri Sanjoy Sutradhar of Natun Nagar, wherein she was kept by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and upon such recovery, the victim girl disclosed about her kidnapping followed by rape. During investigation, police got the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, forwarded her for medical examination, examined the witnesses and arrested Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. At the close of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and the Appellant under Sections 366A/376(2)(g) of IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 376(2)(g) IPC against the accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and the Appellant. The charge was explained and read over to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty. By an order passed by this Court, the proceeding was withdrawn from the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai and transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura for disposal. During the trial, Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas absconded. He was declared absconder and the case was adjourned sine die against him. Hence, the case proceeded against the present Appellant. Sessions Judge, Khowai and transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura for disposal. During the trial, Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas absconded. He was declared absconder and the case was adjourned sine die against him. Hence, the case proceeded against the present Appellant. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 26 witnesses as prosecution witnesses and exhibited certain documents including the school certificate (Ext.P/3), the statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext.9), the medical examination reports (Exts. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) and the birth certificate of the victim girl (Ext. 16). At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the Appellant Sri Narayan Debnath was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegation, brought against him, and declined to adduce evidence. Considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge held the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and recorded the conviction and sentence as indicated above. 5. Mr. H. Debnath, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has submitted that there is no substantive reliable evidence against the Appellant and that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Referring to the evidence of P W 9, PW 12 and PW 25, Mr. Debnath, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that PW 9 i.e. Smt. Debi Roy Choudhury, who was stated to be present all along with the victim girl from the time of kidnapping till her recovery, did not state anything about the rape alleged to be committed by the Appellant, and that PW 12, a police officer, who had recovered the victim girl did not state anything regarding rape committed by the Appellant. It is submitted, by the learned Counsel that the victim girl, while disclosing to this witness about kidnapping and rape committed by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, did not whisper anything against the Appellant. The learned Counsel, drawing the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW 25 i.e. the mother of the victim submitted that she did not tell the police that her daughter was raped by the Appellant. In the light of the above, the learned defence counsel has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the allegation of rape against the Appellant for which, he is entitled to be acquitted. In the light of the above, the learned defence counsel has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the allegation of rape against the Appellant for which, he is entitled to be acquitted. Refuting the said averment, advanced on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned judgment and order, has submitted that there are sufficient evidence against the Appellant and that the evidence of the victim girl itself is sufficient to base the conviction. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment needs no interference. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, I feel it appropriate to briefly scan the evidence on record. 7. PW 1 Sri Jishu Bhattacharjee stated that the informant Satish Chandra Sarkar, i.e. the father of the victim girl and his daughter (victim girl) were known to him. They were residing in the house of the accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas as tenant. The father of the victim girl informed him that his daughter was kidnapped by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. He further stated that after 3/4 days, the Appellant Narayan Debnath @ Naru informed Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar that the victim girl had been confined in the quarter of accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. He also stated that the victim girl was recovered by police. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the Appellant Sri Narayan Debnath did not inform Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar that his daughter was kept in confinement by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas in his quarter at Agartala. 8. PW 2 Sri Brajendra Chandra Das stated that the victim girl was recovered by police from the quarter of Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. 9. PW 3, Sri Debojyoti Nath stated that Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar and his daughter (victim girl) were known to him and that Sri Sarkar informed him that his daughter was missing. He further stated that after few days of occurrence, one Sri Narayan Debnath (Appellant) informed Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar that the victim was confined by Sri Bachhu Biswas @ Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and that police had recovered the victim girl thereafter. 10. He further stated that after few days of occurrence, one Sri Narayan Debnath (Appellant) informed Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar that the victim was confined by Sri Bachhu Biswas @ Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and that police had recovered the victim girl thereafter. 10. PW 4 Sri Ratan Kumar Dey was posted as Assistant Teacher at the relevant time in Srikrishna Girls' school, where the victim girl was studying in class-VI. He stated that on, 8.7.99, police went to the school and enquired about issuance of age proof certificate of the victim girl. 11. PW 5 Sri Kamala Ranjan Bhattacharjee who was Assistant Teacher in the Srikrishna Pathsala, in which the victim girl was studying in Class-VI, stated that, on 8.7.99, police went to his school and enquired if the victim girl was prosecuting studies in the said school. 12. PW 6 Sri Kaushik Ranjan Dutta an Assistant Teacher of Srikrishna Girls' High School stated that police visited their school and seized one admission register, one transfer certificate in respect of the victim girl and one certificate book of the school in his presence. 13. PW 7 Sri Haripada Debbarma was an ASI of Police. He stated that on 9.6.99 the O.C. of Khowai PS directed him to enquire about a missing report received on the Khowai PS. He enquired into the matter, but could not trace out the girl. He stated that Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar had lodged a report in the Khowai PS informing that his daughter had been detained at Agartala by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. 14. PW 8, Smt. Lovely Biswas, who was the wife of the accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, deposed that her husband indulged in immoral activities and that he maintained physical relation with Smt. Devi (PW 9) who was their maid servant. She further stated that she left the house of her husband on 1.5.99, from which date she has been living separately. 15. PW 9, Smt. Debi Roy Choudhury, stated that accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, who was known to her, took her, while she was a kid, to his house with promise that he would get her admitted in a school and that, when she grew up, Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas committed rape on her. She also stated that Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas kidnapped the victim girl and kept her in his quarter at Agartala and committed rape on her. She also stated that Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas kidnapped the victim girl and kept her in his quarter at Agartala and committed rape on her. She further stated that the accused Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas was arrested by police. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the victim girl was not kidnapped and raped by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. From the evidence of this witness, it transpires that she used to live with Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, at the relevant time and she was all along present during the period, in which the victim girl was kept in confinement, after her kidnapping. But, this witness did not whisper anything about the involvement of the Appellant. 16. PW 10, Smt. Jyoti Rani Sutradhar, stated that about three years ago Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas, who was known to her husband, came to her house along with two women and that he left those two women in her house saying that he would return soon for taking them back. According to this witness, police went to her house along with Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas (under arrest) and took away those two women. 17. PW 11, Sanjoy Sutradhar who turned hostile was cross-examined by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he denied to have stated before police that Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas went to his house with the victim girl. 18. PW 12, Sri Santi Bhusan Bhuiya was an SI of police. He deposed regarding recovery of the victim girl from the house of Sri Sanjoy Sutradhar on being led by PW 24. 19. PW 13 Smt. Sima Biswas stated that she accompanied SI R. K. Bhattacharjee at the time of arresting Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and recovering the kidnapped girl. She further stated that, on query, the victim girl stated that she and Bikash were living as husband and wife. This witness did not tell anything regarding involvement of the Appellant. 20. PW 14 Sri Matilal Das and PW 15 Sri Pradip Das, stated regarding seizure of one Vespa Select scooter by the police. 21. PW 16 Sri Chittaranjan Sarkar, who turned hostile, in his cross-examination, denied to have stated before police that he saw Bikash riding scooter going towards Agartala along with the victim girl. 22. PW 17, Sri Sudhangshu Sarkar was tendered by the prosecution and the cross-examination of this witness was declined by the defence. 23. 21. PW 16 Sri Chittaranjan Sarkar, who turned hostile, in his cross-examination, denied to have stated before police that he saw Bikash riding scooter going towards Agartala along with the victim girl. 22. PW 17, Sri Sudhangshu Sarkar was tendered by the prosecution and the cross-examination of this witness was declined by the defence. 23. PW 18, Sri Phani Bhusan Bhattacharjee, who was the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, at the relevant time, recorded the statement of the victim girl, under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. He exhibited the statement as Exbt. 9/1. 24. PW 19, Sri Priyatosh Das, who was an SI of police, stated that, on 4.7.99, while he was on G.D. duty, he received a complaint from Sri Satish Sarkar and registered the same as Khowai PS case No. 36/99 under Section 366 IPC. He entrusted the investigation of the case to S.I. R.K. Bhattacharjee. 25. PW 20, Dr. Rangalal Debbarma deposed that on 6.7.99 he had done the pathological test of vaginal swab of the victim girl and found no spermatozoa. He could not give conclusive opinion regarding rape. 26. PW 21, Dr. Raichand Saha deposed that on 6.7.99 he had done ossification test of the victim girl and opined that the girl was aged in between 14 to 16 years. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the victim girl was more than 16 years. 27. PW 22 Dr. Shyam Sundar Saha deposed that on 14.7.99 he had done medical examination of the accused Appellant Sri Narayan Debnath. On examination, he found him capable of having sexual intercourse. 28. PW 23 i.e. the victim girl stated that the informant Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar was her father and that they were residing in the house of Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas as tenant. She further stated that, on 9.6.99, while she was going to school, Bikash along with one woman, namely, Debi Ghosh Biswas (P W 9) asked her to accompany them for a visit to a friend's house and that on being assured that Sri Bikash would take her back to the school, she joined them by riding on the pillion of his scooter, but she was forcibly taken to Agartala by threatening her with a dagger. She also stated that Sri Bikash brought her to his quarter at Agartala, wherein she found the Appellant Sri Narayan Debnath, with whom she had love affairs and that the Appellant, assuring her to marry, had performed intercourse with her. She further stated that Sri Narayan Debnath had given Rs. 300/- to Bikash to purchase sari, conch and vermilion, and left the said quarter with the promise that he would return in the evening to marry her, but he failed to return and keep his promise. She further stated that Sri Bikash threatened her with a dagger, compelled to wear those articles and thereafter he raped her several times by keeping her in confinement till her recovery by police from the house of one Sri Sanjoy Sutradhar. She stated that the accused Narayan Debnath did not keep any contact with her after committing rape on her in the quarter of the accused Bikash. She also stated that Smti Debi Roy Choudhury (PW 9) was all along present with her. 29. PW 24, Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar, who is the father of the victim girl, stated that after 3/4 days, accused Narayan Debnath informed them that the victim girl was in the quarter of Bikash Ranjan Biswas at Agartala and the police, on the basis of such information, recovered his daughter from the custody of Bikash. This witness stated that his daughter told him that Narayan Debnath (Appellant) raped her in the quarter of Bikash on the first night of her kidnapping and thereafter Sri Bikash raped her continuously till her recovery by police. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he told Darogababu that his daughter (victim girl) told him that accused Narayan Debnath committed intercourse with her, but the learned trial Judge observed that no such statement was made by this witness before the police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure 30. PW 25, Smt. Pratima Rani Sarkar, who is the mother of the victim girl stated that, Narayan Debnath informed them that their daughter was available in the quarter of Bikash Ranjan Biswas and that, she along with other neighbourers and Narayan went to the quarter of Bikash. PW 25, Smt. Pratima Rani Sarkar, who is the mother of the victim girl stated that, Narayan Debnath informed them that their daughter was available in the quarter of Bikash Ranjan Biswas and that, she along with other neighbourers and Narayan went to the quarter of Bikash. She also stated that, she could not speak to her daughter, as she did not respond to her call and that, Smti Debi Roy Choudhury (PW 9), who was also inside the said quarter along with the victim girl, told this witness, from inside the room, that Bikash directed them not to open the door. The witness stated that her daughter after her recovery, told her that, in the quarter of Sri Bikash at Agartala, Narayan Debnath committed intercourse with her and thereafter Sri Bikash committed intercourse with her, till she was recovered by police. She admitted that she did not tell the police that her daughter had told her that Sri Narayan had intercourse with her. 31. PW 26, Ramendra Kumar Bhattacharjee was the Investigating Officer. He arranged medical examination for the victim girl and forwarded her to the Magistrate for recording her statement. At the close of the investigation, he submitted chargesheet against Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and the Appellant Narayan Debnath under Section 366A/376(2)(g) IPC. 32. From the above evidence on record, it is found that Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas had kidnapped and kept the victim girl in confinement till her recovery by police and only after her recovery it came to light that she was raped by the Appellant on the first night of the kidnapping in the quarter of Sri Bikash and thereafter Sri Bikash repeatedly raped her. It is further revealed, from the evidence on record that Smti Debi Roy Choudhury i.e. PW 9 was all along present with the victim girl from the time of kidnapping and till her recovery. PW 9 stated against Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. But, she did not whisper anything against the Appellant. If the Appellant, as stated by the victim girl, was present in the quarter of Sri Bikash and if he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl, there was no reason for the PW 9 not to support the contention of the victim girl. That apart, the parents of the victim girl, who deposed as PWs 24 and 25 met her immediately after her recovery from the confinement. That apart, the parents of the victim girl, who deposed as PWs 24 and 25 met her immediately after her recovery from the confinement. Sri Satish Chandra Sarkar, the father of the victim girl deposed as PW 24. In his evidence, he stated that his daughter had told him that she was raped by the Appellant in the house of Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas on the first night itself. In his cross-examination, he asserted that he had made such statement before the Investigating Officer. But the learned trial Judge observed that no such statement was made by the witness before the Investigating Officer. Similarly, PW 25 i.e. the mother of the victim girl stated that her daughter had reported her that the Appellant had sexual intercourse with her. However, she admitted that she did not tell the police that her daughter had told her that the Appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Therefore, carefully perusing the evidence of the parents of the victim girl, it is found that they did not disclose, about the sexual intercourse, alleged to be committed by the Appellant, at the time of making statement before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, their statement that their daughter had reported them that she was raped by the Appellant was the statement made for the first time before the Court. The failure of the parents of the victim girl to disclose about the sexual intercourse alleged to be committed by the Appellant, at the initial stage i.e. at the time of recording their statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, raises doubt about the prosecution version. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated by the prosecution witnesses, it is found that the victim girl was kidnapped by Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas and she was kept in confinement by the said accused. There is nothing on record to find that the Appellant had played any role in kidnapping the victim girl. That apart, the victim girl herself stated that she had love affairs with the Appellant. There is nothing on record to find that the Appellant had played any role in kidnapping the victim girl. That apart, the victim girl herself stated that she had love affairs with the Appellant. In the above circumstances, it is doubtful if the Appellant was present in the house of Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas at the time of taking the victim to the said house and as to whether the Appellant had sexual intercourse with her by giving assurance that he would marry her and left her at the mercy of Sri Bikash Ranjan Biswas. 33. That apart, the victim girl nowhere stated that the Appellant had applied any force having sexual intercourse with her. From her evidence, it can be gathered that she on being assured by the Appellant that the latter would marry her allowed the Appellant to have sexual intercourse. Therefore, it appears that even if the Appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim girl the same was done with the consent of the victim girl, with whom the Appellant had love affairs. It is also quite surprising that a person who had love affairs with a girl would leave his lover at the hand of another person. 34. It is settled law that in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove the allegation brought against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of such doubt should always go in favour of the accused person. 35. This Court is quite aware that the solitary evidence of the victim women of a rape case is sufficient to base conviction, if found reliable. As discussed above, in the present case, the failure of the prosecution, to implicate the Appellant at the initial stage of making their statement, under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure raises doubt about the reliability of the evidence of PW 23 i.e. the victim girl. Certainly, the parents before making their statements, had interaction with the victim girl and they were informed by the victim about her plight being the custody of the Appellant and Sri Bikash. Therefore, as indicated above, failure of the said parents (PWs 24 and 25) to disclose before the Investigating Officer about the involvement of the Appellant is a major omission which amounts to contradicting the others. 36. Therefore, as indicated above, failure of the said parents (PWs 24 and 25) to disclose before the Investigating Officer about the involvement of the Appellant is a major omission which amounts to contradicting the others. 36. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the evidence of victim girl does not inspire confidence to believe that the Appellant had committed the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 376(1) IPC against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In my considered view, the Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 37. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed against the present Appellant is set aside and quashed. The Appellant is acquitted on benefit of doubt and set at liberty forthwith. His bail bond shall stand discharged. Return the lower Court records. Appeal allowed