JUDGMENT 1. - The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondents for offences under Sections 450, 366 & 376 IPC. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.10.2007, at 2:15 P.M., the prosecutrix (P.W.1), alongwith her husband, Richpal Singh (PW.2), and her father-in-law, Puran Singh (PW.10), lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) (Ex.P-2/1)], wherein she claimed that in the night of 10.10.2007 around 11 O'Clock, when she stepped out of her house in order to answer the call of nature, her neighbours, Billu and Buta Singh, accused respondent No.2 & 3, respectively, covered her face, and carried her to the house of Santa Singh. There they pointed a pistol at her, and threatened her that in case she were to raise any hue and cry, they would kill her. She further claimed that she was deprived of her gold bangles, four gold coins that she was wearing, of her earnings, of her nose-pin, and of her anklets. Subsequently, Gurnam Singh, Chinderpal Singh, Palobai alongwith other persons, and the jeep driver took her to Buta Singh's farm situated at 3 FDM. According to her, at the farm, all the five accused persons pointed a pistol at her, tore her clothes, and ravished her. Thereafter, they left her in an unconscious state at Bhagwansar Adda. When she regained her consciousness, she walked up to the Paliwala Bus Stand; from there, she went to the Dhani of Puran Singh. Puran Singh informed her family members, who came to her rescue. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, [Ex.P/2 (Ex.P. 3/1)] was chalked out for offences under Sections 450, 366, 382 & 376 IPC. During the course of investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Chinderpal Singh, Gurdeep Singh @ Billu, Buta Singh for offences under Sections 376, 450, 363, 366 IPC; and against Sharvan, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, while charges against Chinderpal Singh, Gurnam Singh were framed for offences under Sections 366, 376 IPC, the charges against Gurdeep Singh @ Billu and Buta Singh were framed for offences under Sections 450, 366 & 376 IPC. 3. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, and submitted twenty-eight documents. 3. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, and submitted twenty-eight documents. Although, the defence, did not examine any witness, it did submit two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 13.10.2011, the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondents. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. Mahipal Vishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Judge has ignored the fact that the prosecutrix had given a consistent story in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even before the trial court. Secondly, that the learned Judge has erred in looking for corroboration of her testimony. In fact, the learned Judge should not have looked for corroboration of her testimony. Hence, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused respondents. 5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the impugned judgment. 6. Earlier, considered to be an abettor or an accomplice in crime, initially, the courts sought corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix. However, through a series of judgments decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prosecutrix is no longer seen as an a better of crime. Now, she is viewed as a victim of the crime. Since she is a victim of the crime-a crime which leaves her physically battered, psychologically shattered and mentally disturbed - generally her testimony is accepted as the gospel truth. However, with the rise in cases of rape, with the changing scenario in the society, where various relationships and dubious deeds are being given the colour of rape, the Courts have become more cautious in accepting the testimony of the prosecutrix as the unblemished truth. Since in many cases, the prosecutrix may be the sole witness, and is certainly the star witness for the prosecution, the Court requires certain corroboration, if the prosecutrix is not a trustworthy witness. Corroboration is sought as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law. Since the prosecutrix may be the sole witness on whose testimony conviction would depend, law requires her to be a witness of sterling worth. Therefore, it is imperative that her testimony should be tested on the touchstone of her conduct. For, many a times, action speaks louder than words. Since the prosecutrix may be the sole witness on whose testimony conviction would depend, law requires her to be a witness of sterling worth. Therefore, it is imperative that her testimony should be tested on the touchstone of her conduct. For, many a times, action speaks louder than words. Therefore, her conduct may reveal the hidden truths camouflaged by the prosecutrix in her testimony. [Ref. to Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, 2012 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 79 : (2011) 7 SCC 130 . 7. The prosecutrix (PW.1), has narrated the story in her examination-in-chief; according to her, on 10.10.2007, while she had stepped out of her house to answer the call of nature, Billu @ Gurdeep Singh and Buta Singh covered her face, and look her to the house of Santa Singh. They threatened her with a pistol and deprived her of her jewellery. According to her, she was detained at the house of Santa Singh till 5 O'Clock in the morning. At 5:00 A.M., she was taken to Buta Singh's farm. She was carried in a tempo alongwith Sharwan Singh, Chinderpal Singh, Gurnam Singh, Billu and Buta Singh. At the farm, while Sharwan Singh, Chinderpal Singh and Gurnam Singh returned, she was left with Buta Singh and Billu. According to her, at the farm, she was ravished by both Buta Singh and Billu. Subsequently, according to her, Sharwan Singh, Chinderpal Singh and Gurnam Singh came back in a jeep, and took her in the jeep alongwith Billu and Buta Singh. They kept on roaming from 12 o'clock in the afternoon till night. Around 12 o'clock in the afternoon they took her to a abandoned place, where she was ravished by all the five persons. She claimed that these five persons abandoned her in an unconscious state. When she regained her consciousness, she found herself at the Bhagwansar Railway Station. She realised that she was no longer wearing the clothes that she was wearing earlier. From the Railway Station, she walked 4 kms. to Puran Singh's village. She told Puran Singh about the incident, who called her family members. In her testimony, she has further claimed that when she was abducted, she received injuries on her body. She further claimed that she was taken to nursery, where there were keker trees. From the Railway Station, she walked 4 kms. to Puran Singh's village. She told Puran Singh about the incident, who called her family members. In her testimony, she has further claimed that when she was abducted, she received injuries on her body. She further claimed that she was taken to nursery, where there were keker trees. She further claimed that while she was ravished, thorns stuck on her body, and she suffered injuries on her body. She further claimed that she had also received injuries on her private parts. According to her, the accused persons had bitten on her chest, on her thigh, on her face. According to her, these injuries lasted for about ten days. She further claimed that when she regained her consciousness at Bhagwansar Railway Station, from there she went on a motor-cycle to the Paliwala Bus Stand. From Paliwala Bus Stand, she went with Jagdish to his village. 8. In her cross-examination, she admits to the fact that Buta Singh had a tempo, and he used to come to her house quite often. She also claimed that because of his frequent visits, her family members treated him almost as a member of the family. She also admitted that she used to go, many a times, to the bazars with Buta Singh. She also admitted that in her statement give under Section 164 Cr.PC., she did not mention the fact that she was ravished by Billu and Buta Singh at the farm. She has also admitted that this fact was not even mentioned in her statement given to the police (Ex.D/1). She has also admitted that when she was taken to the farm, the accused persons took her off from a jeep at a canal, and from there they walked to the farm. She equally admitted that at the farm, she kept on roaming around with her alleged rapists till afternoon. According to her, it was a harvest season; yet there were no farmers on other farms. Moreover, according to her, she went around with all the five of them in jeep till 8:00 P.M. According to her, they even stopped at a hotel to have a cup of tea. Thus, according to her she allegedly kept on roaming around with the five accused persons till night. 9. A bare perusal of the tall tale narrated by the prosecutrix (PW. Thus, according to her she allegedly kept on roaming around with the five accused persons till night. 9. A bare perusal of the tall tale narrated by the prosecutrix (PW. 1) clearly raises a doubt about the veracity of her testimony. For, while she claimed that she was ravished by Billu and Buta Singh, she kept on roaming around with them. Similarly, from 12 o'clock in the afternoon till night, she accompanied her alleged rapists. They had tea at a hotel, yet she did not raise any hue and cry about the fact that she had been ravished by all of them. Since, her conduct does not commensurate with her testimony, the learned Judge had no other option but to seek corroboration from other evidence. 10. The learned Judge has noticed the fact that according to the prosecutrix (PW.1) she had suffered large number of injuries, both in the external and private parts of her body. According to her, these injuries were present for ten days. Yet, according to Dr. Vinod Kumar (P.W.12), when he examined the prosecutrix on 13.10.2007, that is just three days after the alleged incident, he did not find any external injury on her body. Moreover, he did not find any injury on her private parts or internally in her private parts. According to him, the bleeding that he noticed was due to her menstrual cycle. The testimony of Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW.12) was further corroborated by Dr. Archana Bhansali (P.W.14). Thus, there was no medical corroboration of the fact that she had been subjected to rape, and that she had suffered injuries on her body, while she raped. Most importantly, according to both the doctors when they examined her, they found her behavior normal; she did not show any anxiety, any shock or disturbance due to the alleged gang rape. 11. The learned Judge has also noticed the fact that according to the FSL report (Ex.P/26), there was presence of human semen on the underwear of the prosecutrix, and the underwears of Chinderpal and Gurdeep Singh. However, the prosecution has failed to prove as to when the underwear, worn by the prosecutrix, was handed over to the police. According to the prosecutrix (P.W.1), she had changed her clothes thrice. For, according to her, her clothes were torn, while she was allegedly raped by the accused persons. However, the prosecution has failed to prove as to when the underwear, worn by the prosecutrix, was handed over to the police. According to the prosecutrix (P.W.1), she had changed her clothes thrice. For, according to her, her clothes were torn, while she was allegedly raped by the accused persons. According to her, when she regained her consciousness at the Railway Station, she realised that she was wearing a different set of clothes. Furthermore, according to her, when she went to Jagdish's village, his wife and given her a separate set of clothes. Although the prosecutrix (PW.1) claims that she had given her underwear to the doctor, during her medical examination, but neither Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW.12), nor Dr. Archana Bhansali (PW.14) corroborate this statement. The learned Judge has also noticed that in the Malkhana register, there is not a single indication that the police had recovered the prosecutrix underwear, and the same was kept in the Malkhana. Thus, a grave doubt is created as to how the underwear, allegedly belonging to the prosecutrix, reached the FSL. Thus, the presence of the semen on her underwear loses its significance. 12. Moreover, considering the fact that both Chinderpal Singh and Gurdeep Singh were medically examined, and were found to be competent for sexual intercourse, the presence of human semen on their underwear is not surprising. Moreover, in the FSL report, there is no indication that the human semen, found on the underwear of the prosecutrix, belonged to either of them. Therefore, the recovery of the underwear of the prosecutrix, and of the accused respondents, Chinderpal and Gurdeep Singh, does not connect the accused respondents to the alleged rape. 13. Thus, a bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge has meticulously considered and critically analyzed the evidence produced by the prosecution. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment dated 13.10.2010. Hence, the criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******