Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 878 (GAU)

Haiparai Jamatia v. State of Tripura

2011-11-04

A.C.UPADHYAY, C.R.SARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. The judgment and order, dated 14-2-05, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Sections 457 and 376 read with Sections 511 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), are in challenge in this appeal. The appellant, who faced trial on the charge of committing offences as indicated above has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for another two months for his conviction under Section 457 IPC and suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for another period of six months for his conviction under section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. The appellant has also been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for his conviction under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences, the convict, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, as revealed during the trial, may be stated as follows :- On the night of 30-3-01, at about 9-0' clock, when the informant (PW 1) along with her husband and two children were sleeping in her house, the appellant entered the house by breaking open the door and attempted to commit rape on the daughter of the informant. On being so approached by the appellant, the husband of the informant (since deceased) resisted the former by giving dao blows thereby compelling the appellant to take to his heels. On the following day, i.e. on 31-3-01, one NLFT extremist, namely, Mr. Negro Jamatia took the informant's husband for taking revenge of inflicting dao blows on the appellant in the earlier incident and the said extremist, along with his companions, brutally killed the husband of the informant. Accordingly, 31- 03-2001, the wife of the deceased, as informant, lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Ompi police station, which was received vide G.D. Entry No. 712. Upon receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case under Sections 457 and 376 read with Sections511, 325 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. Accordingly, 31- 03-2001, the wife of the deceased, as informant, lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Ompi police station, which was received vide G.D. Entry No. 712. Upon receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case under Sections 457 and 376 read with Sections511, 325 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, sent the victim girl (P.W. 11) for medical examination, recorded her statement under Section 164 CrPC, prepared inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased, prepared hand-sketch map and examined the witnesses. At the close of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the said offences against the accused-appellant, namely, Haiparai Jamatia, Durgapada Jamatia alias Dadong alias Apurai, Negro Jamatia and Akramosha Jamatia. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned SDJM, Amarpur committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the present appellant for the offences under Section 457 and 376 read with Sections 511 and Section302 read with Section 34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW 9), who examined the victim girl, the Judicial Magistrate (PW 16), who recorded the statement of the informant under Section 164 CrPC and the investigating police officer (PW 5). At the close of the evidence, for the prosecution, the accused person was examined, under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the convictions and the sentences as indicated above. 3. We have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, taking us through the evidence on record, has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused person had made any attempt to commit rape on the daughter of the informant and that he was involved with the murder of the husband of the informant. 4. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, taking us through the evidence on record, has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused person had made any attempt to commit rape on the daughter of the informant and that he was involved with the murder of the husband of the informant. The learned counsel, referring to the discrepancies, which have surfaced from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of the informant, i.e. PW 1 and her daughter i.e. PW 11, has submitted that it is not at all believable that the appellant had either made any attempt to commit rape or committed rape on PW 11. It is also submitted that there is no convincing and substantive evidence, indicating involvement of the appellant with the death of the husband of the informant. In view of the above, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has contended that the learned Sessions Judge committed error by awarding the conviction and sentences, as indicated above and that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offences, charged against him. 5. Controverting the said argument, made by the learned defence counsel, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has contended that there is sufficient evidence, on record, to show that the appellant committed rape on the victim woman and that he was also involved in the killing of the husband of the informant. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned judgment and order, has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant and as such the impugned judgment and order need no interference by this court. 6. In order to appreciate the counter arguments, advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to, briefly, scan the evidence, on record, as follows :- 7. The mother of the victim girl (P.W. 11), who is the widow of the deceased, lodged the FIR which was written by one Binoy Kumar Jamatia (PW 5) as its scribe. The informant, deposing as PW 1, stated that, on the fateful night, the appellant entered their dwelling house, wherein they were sleeping, by breaking open the door and proposed to sleep with her daughter i.e. PW 11. The informant, deposing as PW 1, stated that, on the fateful night, the appellant entered their dwelling house, wherein they were sleeping, by breaking open the door and proposed to sleep with her daughter i.e. PW 11. She stated that she was sleeping with her deceased husband in one bed and her said daughter was sleeping with her eight years old brother in another bed. She further stated that, as the appellant forcibly approached towards the bed of their daughter, her husband resisted him by inflicting dao blow as a result of which, a scuffle had taken place between the appellant and her husband. According to this witness, the appellant sustained injury in the said scuffle and fled their hut. She further stated that, on the following morning, Dadong Jamatia alias Durgapada took her deceased husband to the house of Pradhan Singharai Jamatia for settlement of the incident, that took place on the previous night. According to this witness, as her husband did not return till the evening, she went out in search of her husband and found his dead body, lying on the road. She also stated that she had informed the matter to the local CRPF camp and submitted a written FIR with the police. In her cross-examination, made on behalf of the appellant, this witness denied the suggestion, put to her, that the appellant did nothing to her daughter. 8. Sri Binoy Kumar Jamatia, who wrote the FIR on the basis of the information received from PW 1, deposed as PW 5. He stated that PW 1 had informed him that her daughter was raped by the appellant and that a scuffle had taken place between her husband and the appellant, in which the latter sustained injury. He has exhibited the said FIR, written by him, as Ext. No. 4 and his signature, thereon, as Ext.No. 4/1. A careful reading of the FIR i.e. Ext. No. 4 reveals that one Negro Jamatia, who was a member of the NLFT extremist group, had taken the husband of the informant and that the dead body of the informant's husband was found lying in the cherra land. In the FIR, it has also been mentioned that the accused-appellant made an attempt to commit rape on her daughter, for which her deceased husband put up resistance by giving dao blows compelling the said miscreant to leave the house. In the FIR, it has also been mentioned that the accused-appellant made an attempt to commit rape on her daughter, for which her deceased husband put up resistance by giving dao blows compelling the said miscreant to leave the house. In the FIR, which has not been contradicted by the informant, it has been mentioned that one Negro Jamatia had taken her husband. But in her evidence, the informant i.e. PW 1 stated that her husband was taken by Dadong Jamatia alias Durgapada. The informant neither in the FIR nor in her evidence stated that the present appellant participated in the killing of her husband. The informant, in tune with her statement made in the said FIR, stated that the accused person had made an attempt to commit rape on her daughter. But PW 5, who was the writer of the FIR, stated that the informant had told him that her daughter was raped by the accused. If the informant had told him that her daughter was raped by the accused, there was no reason for the said scribe to mention in the FIR that the appellant had made an attempt to commit rape on the daughter of the informant. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW 1 i.e. the informant and the FIR i.e. Ext.No. 4 indicates that the appellant, if at all, did nothing more than making an attempt to commit rape by approaching towards the bed, in which the daughter of the informant was sleeping with her eight years old brother. Therefore, the evidence of PW 5, that he was informed by the informant that her daughter was raped by the appellant, appears to be exaggerated. Therefore, his evidence, that the P.W. 11 was raped by the appellant, is not at all believable. The victim girl, who deposed as PW 11, also contradicted her mother i.e. the informant (PW 1) and the FIR by stating that the accused had committed rape on her. PW 11, supporting the evidence of her mother (PW 1) stated that her father, who was armed with a dao, resisted the accused, who sustained minor injuries on his person. She further stated that when her younger brother lighted a kupi bati (kerosene lamp) the accused had fled after committing rape on her. According to P.W. 11, she was raped prior to lighting the lamp. She further stated that when her younger brother lighted a kupi bati (kerosene lamp) the accused had fled after committing rape on her. According to P.W. 11, she was raped prior to lighting the lamp. From the evidence of PW 1 and PW 11, it is clearly found that in their house, wherein the alleged occurrence had taken place, the parents of the victim and her brother were present and the father of the victim girl being armed with a dao had resisted the appellant by giving dao blows. According to PW 1, her daughter was sleeping with her brother, who was aged about eight years and the appellant, while entering the house, called the owner of the house and at the call of the appellant they woke up and could identify the appellant in the light of the lamp. Hence according to P.W. 1, the lamp was lighted, immediately after the entry of the appellant and she and her husband were there to resist the appellant. Therefore, the evidence of the P.W.1, that she was raised prior to the lighting of the lamp stood falsified. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is hardly believable that the appellant, who does not appear to be armed with any weapon, could commit rape on the daughter of the deceased, who was armed with a dao. It is not at all believable that any person, who is armed with a dao, would allow any miscreant to commit rape on his daughter. That apart, the informant in her evidence clearly stated that the appellant, though tried to commit rape on her daughter, was compelled to leave due to the resistance put up by her deceased husband. A close reading of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 11 reveal a major discrepancy regarding the time of lighting the lamp and leaving the place of occurrence by the appellant and also with regard to committing or attempting to commit rape. In our considered opinion, this is a major contradiction in the evidence of PW 1 and PW 11, on material point, raising serious doubt about the veracity of their evidence. The said contradictory evidence given by PW 1 and PW 11 makes it doubtful as to whether the appellant had entered the house of the appellant and made any attempt to commit rape on PW 11. 9. The said contradictory evidence given by PW 1 and PW 11 makes it doubtful as to whether the appellant had entered the house of the appellant and made any attempt to commit rape on PW 11. 9. Sri Gurusadhan Jamatia, who was a neighbour of PW 1, stated that he was informed by PW 1 that her husband i.e. Atahanu Jamatia had gone with Dadong Jamatia on being called by the latter and that the dead body of her husband was found lying near Tehshil office. According to this witness, he rushed to the place, where the dead body of the deceased husband of the informant was lying. He was a witness to the inquest report, prepared by police. This witness has no personal knowledge about taking of the deceased by Dadong Jamatia. He was simply informed by PW 1. Therefore, his evidence regarding taking the deceased by Dadong Jamatia is nothing better than a hearsay evidence. This witness has not made any whisper against the present appellant. 10. Sri Mathurahari Jamatia deposing as PW 3 stated that the deceased i.e. Athanu Kumar Jamatia informed him that the appellant, on the previous night, had entered his house and made an attempt to commit rape on his daughter and that he had assaulted the appellant with a dao. According to this witness, on the following night, PW 1 had informed him that her husband was killed. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see any incident. Therefore, the evidence of PW 3 does not indicate the involvement of the appellant with the alleged incidents of attempt to commit rape and killing of the husband of the informant. 11. Sri Ashrai Jamatia, who deposed as PW 4, stated that he did not know who had killed Athanu Kumar Debbarma i.e. the deceased. This witness further stated that the deceased had informed him that her daughter was raped by the appellant. The evidence of PW 4 that he was informed by the deceased that her daughter was raped by the appellant is belied by the evidence of PW 1 i.e. the mother of the victim woman. 12. Sri Shamulya Kumar Jamatia who deposed as PW 6 stated that he was reported by the deceased that the appellant had entered his house and committed rape on his daughter. 12. Sri Shamulya Kumar Jamatia who deposed as PW 6 stated that he was reported by the deceased that the appellant had entered his house and committed rape on his daughter. According to this witness, on the following night, the dead body of the deceased was found. He further stated that a salish (a village meeting) was arranged in the courtyard of Sruresh Jamatia and that the deceased was called by the Pradhan to attend the said salish. He further stated that the appellant was also present in the said salish and that the deceased was assaulted in the house of Suresh Jamatia. According this witness, the dead body of the deceased was thrown away. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was not present in the salish and that he heard the same from PW 1. Therefore, it is found that this witness had no personal knowledge about the death of the deceased and the alleged rape committed by the appellant. His evidence, that he was not present in the said salish, clearly indicates that he did not know as to who had assaulted the deceased. That apart, his statement that the was reported by the deceased that her daughter was raped by the appellant stood contradicted by the evidence of PW 1 i.e. the mother of the victim woman. 13. Sri Karna Singh Jamatia, who deposed as PW 7, stated that he heard about the incident of rape of the daughter of the informant and the death of her husband. He also stated that he heard the same from PW 1 i.e. the wife of the deceased. As he was reported by the wife of the deceased, there is nothing substantive in his evidence to believe that the appellant had committed the alleged offences. 14. Sri Anna Sadhan Jamatia, who deposed as PW 8, was the minor son of the deceased. He stated that his father was killed by the appellant. He also stated that on the night previous to the death of his father, the appellant had entered their house and committed "kharap kam" with his sister and that his father, being unable to bear the same had assaulted the appellant with a dao. The statement of this witness that his father was killed by the appellant by assaulting him with a lathi is nothing but a bald statement. The statement of this witness that his father was killed by the appellant by assaulting him with a lathi is nothing but a bald statement. He did not make any detailed disclosure as to how and where his father was killed. There is nothing, on record, to show that he had followed his father, when the latter was taken from his house by Dadong Jamatia. We find no corroboration in his evidence to believe that his father was killed by the present appellant. Though this witness stated that the appellant had committed "kharap kam", his mother, i.e. PW 1, did not support his version. The evidence of his mother i.e. PW 1 does not indicate that the appellant could even touch the body of her daughter. Therefore, it is not believable that the appellant had committed any sexual assault on PW 11. 15. Dr. Arup Kumar Bhattacharjee, who is a Medical Officer, deposed as PW 9. He stated that, on 2-4-01, Dr. Animesh Choudhury collected some vaginal swab from the victim woman and upon examination of the same, no spermatozoa was found in the said swab. 16. T/S 3492 Swapan Jamatia, deposing as PW 10, stated about the discovery of one dead body near Tehshil office. He stated that the said dead body was the dead body of Athanu Kumar Jamatia i.e. the deceased. There is no dispute regarding the death of the husband of the deceased. Now, the question involved in this case is as to whether the appellant was involved with the death of the deceased. 17. In the FIR, it has been clearly stated that one Negro Jamatia had taken the deceased from his house and that the dead body of the latter was found lying in a cherra land. The FIR does not indicate about the involvement of the appellant. The informant, who deposed as PW 1, clearly stated that one Dadong Jamatia alias Durgapada had taken her husband to the house of Pradhan Singha Rai Jamatia for settlement of the incident, which took place in the previous night. She further stated that her husband did not return home and on being searched, his dead body was found lying on the road. The informant neither, in the FIR, nor in her evidence made any whisper regarding involvement of the appellant with the death of her husband. She further stated that her husband did not return home and on being searched, his dead body was found lying on the road. The informant neither, in the FIR, nor in her evidence made any whisper regarding involvement of the appellant with the death of her husband. PW 2 also stated that PW 1 had informed him that her husband was taken by Dadong Jamatia. Though PW 3 stated that the deceased was called to a meeting, held in connection with the attempt of committing rape, he stated that he did not know whether the meeting was held or not. However, this witness stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in front of the Tehshil office. This witness did not indicate involvement of any person with the killing of the deceased. PW 4 aforesaid also did not state anything about the involvement of the appellant with the death of the deceased. PW 6 stated that the deceased was called by the Pradhan to the courtyard of Suresh Jamatia in connection with a meeting and that his dead body was thrown away after causing his death. In his cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that he was not present in the said meeting and that he heard about the death of the husband of the informant from the latter. Therefore, it is found that PW 6 also had no personal knowledge about the involvement of the appellant. PW 7 stated that he heard that the appellant had assaulted the deceased and killed him out of grudge in connection with the incident of rape, in respect of the daughter of the deceased. The evidence of PW 7 is nothing more than hearsay evidence and as such his evidence does not help the prosecution to substantiate the allegation of involvement of the appellant with the death of the deceased. Though PW 8 i.e. the son of the deceased stated that his father was killed by the appellant, after assaulting him with a lathi, he did not make any further disclosure as to where and in what manner his father was killed by the appellant. Therefore, his statement that his father was killed by the appellant is a vague one. That apart, the informant i.e. the mother of this witness did not state anything about the involvement of the appellant with the death of her husband. Therefore, his statement that his father was killed by the appellant is a vague one. That apart, the informant i.e. the mother of this witness did not state anything about the involvement of the appellant with the death of her husband. PW 9 was a Medical Officer who deposed regarding the report in respect of vaginal swab of the victim woman and PW 10 was a police officer who identified the dead body of the deceased. From the evidence of PW 11, it is found that, out of fear, she along with other inmates of the house had spent the night following the alleged rape, in the house of one Pathihari and on the next day when they were returning home, the miscreants along with the appellant had intercepted them and took to the house of Suresh Jamatia wherein her father was assaulted. If the said evidence of PW 11 is believed then it must be held that her mother i.e. PW 1 and her brother i.e. PW 8 were also present with her at the time of returning home from the house of Pathihari and taking them to the house of Suresh Jamatia by Dadong Jamatia. But neither her mother, nor her brother aforesaid supported her said contention. Therefore, we find no corroboration in her evidence that she and other inmates of her house were taken by Dadong to the house of Suresh Jamatia and that her father was assaulted by Haiparai and others. Rather, PW 1 stated that Dadong had taken her husband from their house. Therefore, we do not find it safe to believe that the appellant had assaulted her father and that she witnessed the said occurrence. 18. Sri Bhabanipada Jamatia, who deposed as PW 12, stated that, one day, when the deceased was returning from the market, Dadong Jamatia (since deceased) wrongfully restrained and took him for consultation with the extremists. This witness further stated that subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found. He also stated that the deceased was killed by the appellant. He further stated that he heard from the public, on the next day, that the deceased was killed by the appellant and Akramosha. He further stated that he did not see the accused person assaulting the deceased. This witness has given a completely different version and contradicted the statement given by PW 1 and PW 11. He further stated that he heard from the public, on the next day, that the deceased was killed by the appellant and Akramosha. He further stated that he did not see the accused person assaulting the deceased. This witness has given a completely different version and contradicted the statement given by PW 1 and PW 11. According to PW 1, her husband i.e. the deceased was taken by Dadong Jamatia from their house and according to PW 11, Dadong Jamatia had taken her father along with them to the house of Suresh Jamatia from the road, when they were returning from the house of Pathihari after spending the night therein following the rape committed on her. But, according to PW 12, Dadong Jamatia had taken the deceased from the road when he was returning from the market. In view of the said contradictory statements given by the above mentioned witnesses, we do not find it safe to rely on their evidence in this regard. 19. Sri Suresh Jamatia, who is the star witness in this case, deposed as PW 13. According to this witness, Akramasha, appellant and Dadong took the deceased to his house and killed him by assaulting with lathis. He further stated that the dead body was thrown to the premises of the Tehshil office. He further stated that he saw the incident after returning from the market. He also stated that he could not resist the miscreants as they were extremists being members of the NLFT. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that he saw the said miscreants assaulting the deceased after his return from the market. He further stated that his children were present at the time of the assault and that other persons were in the market. Therefore, according to this witness, none except himself and his children, to witnessed the said incident of assault and killing the deceased. According to this witness, Akramosha, the appellant and Dadong Jamatia had taken the deceased to his house and assaulted him with lathis causing his death. His evidence rules out the presence of PW 11 and other members of the family of the deceased in the said place of occurrence. According to this witness, Akramosha, the appellant and Dadong Jamatia had taken the deceased to his house and assaulted him with lathis causing his death. His evidence rules out the presence of PW 11 and other members of the family of the deceased in the said place of occurrence. But PW 11 stated that when her father was taken to the house of Suresh Jamatia, she and other members of her family were also taken and the appellant along with Akramosha, Negro and Dadong had assaulted her father. PW 13 does not indicate the involvement of Negro. Therefore, either PW 1 has exaggerated her statement by indicating the name of Negro or PW 13 has suppressed the involvement of Negro. That apart, according to PW 1, she along with other members of her family were present at the time of assaulting her father. But according to PW 13, neither PW 11 nor any member of her family were present there. PW 1 and PW 8 i.e. the mother and brother respectively of PW 11 also do not support her version in this regard. There is no corroboration in the evidence of PW 13 to substantiate that the appellant and other miscreants had assaulted the deceased causing his death. There is also no medical evidence to show that the assault, inflicted with lathis was the cause of the death of the deceased. The prosecution failed to adduce any medical evidence regarding cause of the death of the deceased. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the appellant and others had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting the blows with lathis. 20. PW 14 Sri Ananta Bela Jamatia, the brother of PW 13 deposed as PW 14. He stated that he did not see the incident of assault on the deceased. But he saw the dead body of the deceased. According to this witness, he was told by PW 13 that the appellant, Akramosha, Dadong and Negro had assaulted and killed the deceased. Though this witness stated that he was reported by PW 13 that the appellant, Akramosha and Dadong along with Negro had assaulted the deceased, PW 13 did not mention the name of Negro. Therefore, the evidence of PW 14 appears to be an exaggerated one with regard to the involvement of Negro. 21. Though this witness stated that he was reported by PW 13 that the appellant, Akramosha and Dadong along with Negro had assaulted the deceased, PW 13 did not mention the name of Negro. Therefore, the evidence of PW 14 appears to be an exaggerated one with regard to the involvement of Negro. 21. PW 15 was the investigating police officer and PW 16 was the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the informant and the victim woman under Section 164 CrPC. 22. Considering entire aspect of the matter, we find that there is no evidence, except the evidence of PW 13, regarding involvement of the appellant with the killing of the deceased. According to this witness, the deceased was killed by assaulting with lathis. The said weapons of assault have neither been seized nor exhibited. That apart, no medical evidence has been adduced to substantiate that the cause of death of the deceased was the assault caused by means of lathi. Therefore, we find no corroboration in the evidence of PW 13 to believe that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting lathi blows on him. We have already noticed that there are enough discrepancies regarding the allegation of rape, brought against the appellant. From the evidence of PW 1, who is the mother of the victim woman, it appears that she was all along present in her house near the victim woman i.e. right from the entry of the appellant and leaving of the house by the latter. She stated nothing except making an attempt by the appellant to rape her daughter by approaching the bed of the latter, wherein she was sleeping with her brother. Her evidence indicates that the appellant even could not touch the body of her daughter. Fact remains that her husband, who was aged about 55 years was armed with a dao and he had inflicted dao blows on the appellant compelling him to leave their house. In the above circumstances, it is hardly believable that the accused could commit any rape on the daughter of the informant. But the daughter of the informant specifically stated that she was raped by the appellant. The said contradiction, which is vital on material point, raises serious doubt about the prosecution version itself. In the above circumstances, it is hardly believable that the accused could commit any rape on the daughter of the informant. But the daughter of the informant specifically stated that she was raped by the appellant. The said contradiction, which is vital on material point, raises serious doubt about the prosecution version itself. It is settled law that the prosecution, in a criminal trial, is required to establish the charge against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence. The law is also well settled that if two views are possible in the attending facts and circumstances of a case, the view going in favour of the accused person should be accepted. 23. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant had committed the offences under Section 457 and 376 read with Sections 511 and Section 302/34 IPC. Therefore, we find it appropriate to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. 24. Accordingly, we find sufficient merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentences. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentences are set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Return the lower court records. Appeal allowed