JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 18.7.2000, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 19.10.2005, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2001 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rohit Parmar and others, accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.7.2000 prosecutrix (PW-7) wife of complainant Ram Chander (PW-6) had come to Sundernagar to meet her younger brother, who was staying at Bal Ashram, Sundernagar. PW-7 could not meet her brother as Incharge of the Ashram wanted them to come the following day. As such, they checked into a hotel by the name of Sukhdev Guest House at about 8. 8.30 p.m. The entry in guest register (Ext.PW-6/A) was made by Pw-6. At about 12.30 a.m. in the night, someone knocked the door of their room saying that he had brought water on the asking of PW-7, PW-6 opened the door when four persons trespassed into their room. Without any reason they started giving beatings both to PW-6 and PW-7. They also robbed them of their money. Thereafter one amongst them, caught hold of PW-6 inside the room and the remaining three forcibly dragged PW-7 out of the guest house and took her away in a vehicle (Van) bearing No. HP-02-0405. Chowkidar of the guest house immediately informed the police and SI Jatinder Kumar (PW-13) made entry in the Rojnamcha with regard to the same. Investigating Officer Jatinder Kumar (PW-13) reached the spot and recorded statement (Ext.PW-6/B) of PW-6. He sent Rukka (Ext.PW-13/A), on the basis of which FIR No. 209/2000 (Ext.PW-9/A) dated 19.7.2000, under Sections 363, 366, 452 and 34, IPC was registered at Police Station, Sundernagar. Same night police found the Van parked at Sundernagar Bus Stand, in which accused Kamal Sharma was found sitting in a drunken condition. He was taken into custody. Police continued search for the remaining accused persons as also the prosecutrix. Investigation revealed that accused Rohit Parmar and Bharat Bhushan had handed over custody of the prosecutrix (PW-7) to Vijay Kumar, who took her away into the jungle (forest). Police apprehended accused Rohit Parmar and Bharat Bhushan who were found travelling on a scooter. In the Jungle, Vijay Kumar threatened the prosecutrix to have sex with him or else he would kill her husband. Police apprehended accused Rohit Parmar and Bharat Bhushan who were found travelling on a scooter. In the Jungle, Vijay Kumar threatened the prosecutrix to have sex with him or else he would kill her husband. In spite of her refusal Vijay Kumar (who was declared as a Proclaimed Offender) forcibly committed sexual intercourse. In the early hours of the following morning i.e. 19.7.2000, prosecutrix was recovered by the police from Jawahar Park. She was in a frightened state, her clothes were torn and smeared with mud. Police got her medical examination done from Dr. Rafia Banu (PW-7) who issued MLC (Ext.PW-8/C). Clothes of the prosecutrix along with the sample of the vaginal swab handed over by the Doctor were taken by the police and sent for chemical analysis. 3. During investigation police took into possession record of guest house from where accused had abducted the prosecutrix. Dr. D.S.Verma (PW-4) conducted medical examination of the complainant as also the present accused and issued MLCs Ext.PW-4/B, Ext.PW-4/C and Ext.PW-4/D. On 24.7.2000 accused Rohit Parmar, Kamal Sharma and Bharat Bhushan made disclosure statements (Ext.PW-2/C, Ext.PW-2/D and Ext. PW-2/E, respectively). They led the police to the spot where series of crimes were committed by them. There police carried out necessary investigation. On 31.7.2000 the police got conducted Test Identification Parade (Ext.PW-2) of the accused persons through Shri D.S. Khenal, Chief Judicial Magistrate (PW-12). Complainant and prosecutrix identified the present accused to be the persons who committed the alleged offence. Vijay Kumar was not apprehended by the police. 4. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 5. Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 363, 366, 392, 376 (2)(g) all read with Section 34, IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. 7. The Court below after appreciating the material on record acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal. 8. We have heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Shri M.S. Guleria, Advocate, on behalf of the accused persons. 7. The Court below after appreciating the material on record acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal. 8. We have heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Shri M.S. Guleria, Advocate, on behalf of the accused persons. We have also minutely examined testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same. 9. By leading clear, cogent and convincing material prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that in furtherance of a common intention all the accused persons committed house trespass by entering into room No. 1 of Sukhdev Guest House with preparation of assaulting the prosecutrix and her husband; in furtherance of common intention they voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Ram Chander Yadav; in furtherance of such common intention they abducted the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her husband with an intention of forcing her to have sexual intercourse with a person other than her husband; in furtherance of such common intention committed an act of robbery of taking away Rs. 1100/- from complainant Ram Chander Yadav and Rs. 2400/- from the prosecutrix and also in furtherance of such common intention got the prosecutrix subjected to rape from Vijay Kumar, one of the members of their gang. 10. To prove the aforesaid charges, attention is invited to testimonies of 13 witnesses. We find Shiv Chand (PW-2), Prem Singh (PW-9), Hoshiar Singh (PW-10), Mool Raj (PW-11) and Jatinder Kumar (PW-13) are police officials. Shri D.S. Khenal, CJM (PW-12) was the Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom Test Identification Parade was carried out. Dr. D.S.Verma (PW-4) and Dr. Rafia Banu (PW-8) conducted medical examination. 11. Complainant Shri Ram Chander Yadav (PW-6) and his wife prosecutrix (PW-7), in our considered view are material witnesses. Shri D.S. Khenal, CJM (PW-12) was the Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom Test Identification Parade was carried out. Dr. D.S.Verma (PW-4) and Dr. Rafia Banu (PW-8) conducted medical examination. 11. Complainant Shri Ram Chander Yadav (PW-6) and his wife prosecutrix (PW-7), in our considered view are material witnesses. Their testimonies, according to the prosecution, stands corroborated by independent witness Shri Harkaran Singh (PW-1), Shri Mayadhar (PW-3) and Shri Krishan Kumar (PW-5), who either noticed presence of the accused at the guest house or witnessed recovery of articles by the police officials. 12. Having minutely gone through the testimonies of material witnesses, we find that prosecution has not been able to establish its case. There are multiple and major exaggerations, improvements and material contradictions in their testimonies. PW-1 and PW-3 have not supported the prosecution case at all. They were declared hostile. Significantly, PW-5 also did not support the prosecution case, yet he was not declared hostile. Their testimonies render the prosecution case to be extremely doubtful. However, before we deal with their testimonies, we shall first deal with the most crucial point in the instant case. 13. It has come in the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-7 that they were not familiar with the identity of the accused. The couple used to reside at Hoshiarpur (Punjab) and had come to Sundernagar (Himachal Pradesh) only to meet brother of the prosecutrix who was residing in a Bal Ashram. Prosecution has not led any evidence to establish this fact. Neither the brother nor Incharge of the Bal Ashram has been examined in Court to show the purpose of visit of the couple to Sundernagar. Names and addresses of nephew, Incharge and particulars of Bal Ashram have not been disclosed. But then presence of the couple at Sundernagar on the date of incident is also not in dispute. 14. According to the police officials i.e. PW-2 and PW-13, accused persons were apprehended prior to 19.7.2000 itself. They state that on 19th July, 2000 itself, complainant and prosecutrix returned to Hoshiarpur and were summoned to Sundernagar on 30.7.2000 for the purpose of carrying out Test Identification Parade, which was conducted on 31.7.2000. Prior to this date, accused could not be identified by the couple. These officials along with Shri D.S.Khenal (PW-12) state that accused were identified by PW-6 and PW-7 during the Test Identification Parade conducted on 31.7.2000 at Sub Jail, Mandi. Prior to this date, accused could not be identified by the couple. These officials along with Shri D.S.Khenal (PW-12) state that accused were identified by PW-6 and PW-7 during the Test Identification Parade conducted on 31.7.2000 at Sub Jail, Mandi. Such version of police officials stands totally contradicted and belied by the prosecutrix and the complainant, according to whom, they continued to stay at Sundernagar for a period of 10 days after the date of incident. They did not return to Hoshiarpur. In fact in no unequivocal, unambiguous and uncontroverted terms they have deposed that police had got the accused identified from them in the Police Station itself and that too in the early hours of the morning. It appears that this was so done on 19.7.2000. They also admit that they visited the Police Station for taking their meals i.e. lunch and dinner, where they would often see the accused. They stayed in the guest house only for one day and thereafter shifted to a house in front of the police station. And most importantly, prosecutrix herself state that police officials had told her that the present accused persons had committed charged offences. Significantly, these witnesses also state that severe beatings were given by the police to the present accused persons. Now, PW-12 could not clearly state whether persons who were brought by the police for carrying out Test Identification Parade were having their faces muffled or not. He also could not state whether or not accused had been shown to the witnesses prior to conduct of Test Identification Parade. In this backdrop, story set up by the police that complainant and prosecutrix identified the accused during the Test Identification Parade on 31.7.2000 totally shatters and falsifies the foundation of the prosecution case. Exercise of Test Identification Parade was nothing but a farce. 15. The alleged disclosure statements made by the accused, in the backdrop of the unrebutted testimonies of the complainant and prosecutrix, with regard to severe beatings given by the police, looses its significance. Significantly, accused were arrested on 19.7.2000 itself, the disclosure statements were made on 24.7.2000 and the Test Identification Parade was got conducted only after a period of one week thereafter. 16. Harkaran Singh (PW-1) allegedly noticed presence of accused persons outside the guest house from where prosecutrix was abducted. Significantly, accused were arrested on 19.7.2000 itself, the disclosure statements were made on 24.7.2000 and the Test Identification Parade was got conducted only after a period of one week thereafter. 16. Harkaran Singh (PW-1) allegedly noticed presence of accused persons outside the guest house from where prosecutrix was abducted. In Court he did not support the prosecution and in spite of extensive cross-examination nothing fruitful could come out in his testimony. He was working as an agent. Significantly prosecution has not been able to examine either the Chowkidar or the owner of the guest house to establish that complainant and prosecutrix actually stayed in the guest house on 18.7.2000. Person who telephonically informed the police was also not examined in Court. Police has not sent register, alleged to have been filled in by the complainant, to an expert to ascertain the genuineness of the entries allegedly made therein by the complainant. The police could also not independently establish that entry in the register was that of the complainant. 17. Mayadhar (PW-3) categorically deposed that he signed recovery memo (Ext.PW-3/A), whereby register was taken by the police in its possession under the impression that it contained the recital of the register being handed over by the police to Hukam Chand. He does not support the prosecution. But even assuming though hypothetically, that he witnessed recovery of the register, we find on record the unrebutted testimony of PW-5 who states that Hukam Chand who used to run the guest house did not produce any register to the police in his presence. Hence, version of the police officials i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 that police visited the spot upon receiving a telephonic call and recovered the register and also apprehended one of the accused persons from there does not inspire confidence at all. 18. The version narrated by the police officials already stands considered and it is seen that otherwise it does not inspire confidence. According to PW-2 and PW-13 only Kamal Sharma was apprehended from the Van, which was found parked near the Bus Stand but, according to the complainant two accused persons i.e. Kamal Sharma and Rohit Parmar were apprehended by the police at that time. According to PW-2 and PW-13 only Kamal Sharma was apprehended from the Van, which was found parked near the Bus Stand but, according to the complainant two accused persons i.e. Kamal Sharma and Rohit Parmar were apprehended by the police at that time. Police officials have given yet another version by stating that Bharat Bhushan was apprehended while he was driving a scooter, which stands materially contradicted by the version of the complainant, according to whom, Bharat Bhushan was in the guest house at the time when police arrived at the spot. 19. Dr. Rafia Banu (PW-8) has categorically deposed that she did not find any marks of external injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. She clearly could not opine as to whether prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse or not. Dr. D.S.Verma (PW-4) only examined the accused persons. It has come on record that even the complainant was got medically examined by the police and for reasons best known to the prosecution, this material piece of evidence has been withheld from the Court. Presence of same would have only corroborated the version of the complainant that he was beaten up by the accused at the guest house. 20. Coming to the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her husband, we find that there are serious contradictions in the same. They are self-contradictory and contradict each other. No doubt, in her examination-in-chief prosecution states that in the middle of the night when door of the room was opened, four boys came inside and started giving beatings to her and her husband. She further states that in the room itself accused tried to sexually assault her and one of the accused took her husband outside the room. When her husband knocked the door, they again gave beatings to him and after robbing them the accused took away her husband from the guest house. She was later on taken away into the jungle where one of the accused persons sexually assaulted her. She does not state how many or which of the accused took her to the jungle. She also does not state for how much time she remained in the room. She states at that time, it was dark. Now this version of hers stands contradicted and not corroborated by her husband. Significantly complainant does not narrate state that accused tried to sexually assault his wife in the room. She also does not state for how much time she remained in the room. She states at that time, it was dark. Now this version of hers stands contradicted and not corroborated by her husband. Significantly complainant does not narrate state that accused tried to sexually assault his wife in the room. In fact he states that his wife was taken away by the accused from the room and he continued to remain inside the room when one of the accused persons forcibly detained him. He states that all the four persons raped his wife, which in fact is not the case of the prosecutrix or the prosecution. Further according to PW-6 the door of the room was opened by the prosecutrix whereas according to the prosecutrix it was her husband who had opened the door. According to the prosecutrix all the accused persons given beatings to her and her husband in the room, which fact is not corroborated by her husband. Complainant states that only one of the accused persons remained in the guest house, whereas, according to the prosecutrix only one person took her away and the other accused continued to remain in the room of the guest house. All these contradictions, in our view are material and glaring. In court, incident has not been narrated by them in the manner prosecution wants us to believe. There are divergent narrations of events by both these witnesses. Hence their testimonies cannot be said to be inspiring in confidence at all. They rendered the witnesses to be unbelievable, unreliable and unworthy of credence. 21. We also find that there are other contradictions on record. According to PW-6 one of the accused was present in the guest house when police arrived, but according to PW-13, none of the accused persons were present in the guest house and three out of four persons were apprehend at different places in the night intervening 18th and 19th July, 2000. 22. According to PW-6, accused had led the police to the place where prosecutrix had been kept by them. Whereas, according to PW-13, one of the accused was apprehend while he was driving the scooter which fact is not so narrated by PW-6, who undisputedly remained with the police party all throughout the night at the time when police was searching for the prosecutrix. Whereas, according to PW-13, one of the accused was apprehend while he was driving the scooter which fact is not so narrated by PW-6, who undisputedly remained with the police party all throughout the night at the time when police was searching for the prosecutrix. According to the police, prosecutrix was recovered from the Park at the time when she was alone. Hence the contradiction is writ large. 23. According to PW-6, prosecutrix had sustained injuries and blood was also oozing, which version is not corroborated by any medical evidence or for that matter by the prosecutrix herself. 24. Also prosecution has not been able to establish the fact that blood and semen found on clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused matched with their group. Hence, there is no link evidence remotely suggesting guilt of the accused. 25. Hence, in our considered view, prosecution has not been able to establish its case by leading, clear, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence on record. 26. Thus, from the evidence led by the prosecution, it is quite apparent that the chain of evidence, linking the accused to the crime, on the basis of evidence on record, has not been established by the prosecution by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. 27. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. 28. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.