Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The accused respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 4/2010 and the accused respondent in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 9/2010 were involved in the same case, arising out of the same FIR. However, as Chetan Puri was subsequently arrested after the trial for the other co-accused persons, namely, Madhu Puri, Phoolshanker, Heera Lal, Smt. Lalita had started, his trial was separately held. Vide two separate judgments, both dated 26.3.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chhittorgarh, all the respondent accused persons have been acquitted by the learned Judge. Hence, the State has filed these two criminal leave to appeals before this Court. Since both the criminal leave to appeals are related, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 1.2.2008, Udailal (PW.1) lodged a written report, (Ex.P.2) wherein he claimed that his daughter, Kumari Rekha, (PW.3) is a student of 10th Class. According to him, his daughter was born on 17.8.1990. He further claimed that on 1.1.2008, accused Chetan Puri, and Madhu Puri, enticed his daughter and took her away, while she was on her way to the school. Upon receiving the information that his daughter has been abducted by two persons, he reached the house of Sadhu Mangilal and recovered his daughter. When he inquired from his daughter, she informed him that Chetan Puri and Madhu Puri had enticed her and taken her to a sister of Pushkar Bhoi. At her house, she was detained in a room till 3.1.2008. However, on 4.1.2008, she managed to escape from that place. She went to her maternal aunt's place from where her father recovered her. He further alleged that on 24.1.2008, while he had gone out for his work, Chetan Puri again came to his house and again took away his daughter. He searched for his daughter. He was informed that Chetan Puri and Madhu Puri have taken his daughter to Parwati's house situated in village Kherwada. On the basis of this report, the police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 61/2008 and recovered the prosecutrix. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet against Madhu Puri, Phool Shankar, Hirlal and Smt. Lalita for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC. Against Chetan Puri, investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 3. On the basis of this report, the police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 61/2008 and recovered the prosecutrix. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet against Madhu Puri, Phool Shankar, Hirlal and Smt. Lalita for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC. Against Chetan Puri, investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 3. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Chetan Puri for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Both the trials were clubbed together. Vide two different judgments, both dated 26.3.2009, learned trial Judge acquitted accused respondents. Hence, these two criminal leave to appeals before this Court. 4. Mr. O.P. Singaria, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. According to Rekha (PW.3), the prosecutrix, she had been enticed by Chetan Puri and had been taken by him to different places. She further alleged that Chetan Puri ravished her at different places. She further claimed that she was subjected to rape by other persons also. However, despite her testimony, the learned Judge has erroneously acquitted the accused respondents. 5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 6. A bare perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that according to learned Judge, the prosecutrix has narrated three different sets of events having occurred on three different dates, namely, 24.1.2007, 31.12.2007 and 24.1.2008. Surprisingly, the FIR was lodged on 1.2.2008 i.e. after an inordinate delay of one year and few days. But the inordinate delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, a shadow of doubt is cast on the prosecution case. 7. A bare perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix reveals that according to her, Madhu Puri was carrying out the work of plaster at her house; his brother, Chetan Puri used to came to her house once in a while. On 31.12.2007, Chetan Puri came to her house in a car and asked her to accompany him. When she refused to do so, he pulled out a sword from inside the car. Fearful of her safety, she went with him in his car. He took her to his house situated in Karikheda where he ravished her in a room. He kept her in that room for a day. On the next day, he took her to a different place and left her there. Fearful of her safety, she went with him in his car. He took her to his house situated in Karikheda where he ravished her in a room. He kept her in that room for a day. On the next day, he took her to a different place and left her there. His friend Pushkar gave her the money to take a bus. However, instead of going to her parental place, she went to her maternal aunt's place. Her maternal aunt's husband, her uncle, informed her father who came to take her away. She further claimed that on 24.1.2008, while she was alone in her house, Madhu Puri and Chetan Puri came to her place on a motorcycle and took her to Kapasan. On the way to Kapasan, in a Jungle, both of them ravished her. They took her to Kapasan Railway Station. While Madhu Puri left them at the Railway Station Kapasan, Chetan Puri took her to Udaipur and from Udaipur to Kherwara. At Kherwara, he deposited her at the house of Parwati. At her house, again Chetan ravished her at night. The next day, Chetan Puri came back to Chittor on the pretext that there was some religious ceremony to be performed at his home. For four days she was left with Parwati. Bhanwar and Raju called Parwati; Raju, a lawyer, informed her that it is better that the prosecutrix be taken to a Court where she can depose that she wanted to marry Chetan Puri. 8. She further claimed that at Parwati's house, Parwati's younger brother-in-law, Phool Shanker came. Parwati requested Phool Shanker to take the prosecutrix with him and put her on a bus. On this suggestion, Phool Shanker, Parwati and her husband, Kalu, took her to the bus stand. However, at night, no bus was available. Therefore, Phool Shanker took her to his village and told her that the next day he would put her on the bus. But even on the next day, she was not placed on the bus. On the next day, in the evening, she was brought back to the Kherwada bus stand. At the bus stand, Phool Shanker called a lady Lalita, who came to the bus stand and spoke to the prosecutrix. Meanwhile, Phool Shanker went away. Lalita took the prosecutrix into confidence, and took her home. On the next day, in the evening, she was brought back to the Kherwada bus stand. At the bus stand, Phool Shanker called a lady Lalita, who came to the bus stand and spoke to the prosecutrix. Meanwhile, Phool Shanker went away. Lalita took the prosecutrix into confidence, and took her home. At night, Lalita called two persons and stated that she has a girl staying with her. Lalita's husband, Hiralal, came and ravished her. She further alleged that later in the night, two persons came in an Indica Car and she was forced to go with them. However, these persons left her on the highway. She got out of the car and boarded a bus. The bus brought her back to Kherwada; at the Kherwada bus stand she again ran into Phool Shanker. Phool Shanker took her to village Amjera where he kept her for five to six days. According to her, every day he raped her. From village Ajmera, he took her to Hasanpur where again she was kept for fifteen to twenty days. From Hasanpur, Phool Shanker brought her to Dewal where again he kept on ravishing her. Subsequently, she was rescued by her father and taken to her home. 9. According to learned Judge, the story narrated by the prosecutrix is a long tale, which can hardly be believed. Initially she was taken by Chetan Puri on 31.12.2007, then again on 24.1.2008. According to her Chetan Puri had ravished her on 31.12.2007 yet again she went with him on 24.1.2008. Between 31.12.2007 till 24.1.2008 i.e. for a period of twenty four days, despite the fact that police personnels had come to her house, she did not reveal anything to them. Her silence casts a doubt over the veracity of her tale. 10. She further wants the Court to believe that on 24.1.2008 she was abducted by Madhu Puri and Chetan Puri. From Kapasan she traveled to Udaipur in a train, from Udaipur to Kherwada without protest and without making any attempt to run away from the custody of Chetan Puri. 11. Similarly for Phool Shanker, although she claimed that he ravished her over a month, she again went with him after escaping from the custody of the two men in a car. 11. Similarly for Phool Shanker, although she claimed that he ravished her over a month, she again went with him after escaping from the custody of the two men in a car. Without protest, she accompanied him to village Ajmera to Hasanpur, from Hasanpur to Gujarat and from Gujarat she returns to Dewal along with Phool Shanker. Despite her travels with Phool Shanker, she again does not protest and does not raise any hue and cry; she does not try to run away from his custody. Therefore her conduct creates a doubt the veracity of the story. 12. In her cross-examination, repeatedly, she has admitted the fact that the places she visited both with Chetan Puri and with Phool Shanker were full of people. She also admitted that she did run into policemen. Yet, she neither informed any person in public, nor informed the policemen. 13. In the case of Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 ) the Apex Court has opined that the prosecutrix has to be a witness of sterling worth. Her testimony has to be tested on the touchstone o her conduct. In the present case the prosecutrix's silence, her repeatedly suffering alleged rapes all the hand of different person, without a cry for help, without protest, without trying to escape, belie her tall tale. 14. According to the medical evidence, the prosecutrix is more than 18 years old. Therefore, the story narrated by her clearly points to her elopement, rather than to the fact that she has been abducted by the accused respondents and has been subjected to rape. 15. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that learned Judge has given cogent and legal reasons for acquitting the accused respondents. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in either of the two criminal leave to appeals filed before this Court. Hence both these criminal leave to appeals are, hereby, dismissed.