JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. The challenge has been laid by the appellant hereinafter after called as “the accused” to his conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Sessions trial No. 14 of 2009 decided on 18.11.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period 7 years and to pay a fine of ‘1 0,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine, if realized, is ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix. The period of detention spent in custody during investigation and trial of this case is ordered to be set-off against the substantive sentence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. The orchards of the father of the prosecutrix and that of the accused are adjoining to each other. On 24.8.2008, during the day time, the prosecutrix went to her orchard to cut the grass. Accused, who was working in his orchard, called the prosecutrix to cut the grass also from his orchard. She went there but to her utter surprise, she was pushed on the ground by the accused. He tied her hands with the rope Ext. P3, mouth was gagged with the handkerchief, her trouser was put off and committed rape on her. Thereafter accused put on his pant, untied the rope and removed the handkerchief from the mouth of the prosecutrix. She started screaming. Her screams were heard by PW2 Ramesh, her cousin who was doing some work in his orchard nearby. He rushed to the spot, took prosecutrix to her house and informed her father about the incident, ultimately FIR Ext. PW1/ A was lodged. 3. The prosecutrix was got medically examined from PW7 Dr. Mrs. Neena Lal around 8 p.m. on the same day. The prosecutrix produced rust colour salwar Ext. P1 with center tear allegedly having been worn by her at the time of incident. It was sealed and sent for forensic examination. There were no marks of violence or injury on the person or body of the prosecutrix. The doctor also took vaginal smear and pubic hair of the prosecutrix for its chemical examination and she was referred to ascertain the skeletal age. On receipt of the report of the chemical examination Ext. It was sealed and sent for forensic examination. There were no marks of violence or injury on the person or body of the prosecutrix. The doctor also took vaginal smear and pubic hair of the prosecutrix for its chemical examination and she was referred to ascertain the skeletal age. On receipt of the report of the chemical examination Ext. PW7/C, doctor gave her opinion Ext. PW7/D on 31 .12.2008, that the prosecutrix was exposed to coitus. PW10 Dr. M.L. Bandhu, on the basis of the fusion of bones, opined her skeletal age between 15 to 17 years and report to this effect is Ext.PW10/E based upon the radiographs Ext. PW10/A to Ext. PW10/D. 4. PW10 doctor Gian Chand Thakur, the Assistant Director of the State Forensic Science was examined to prove report Ext. PW7/A. According to him, salwars Ext. P1 and Ext. P4 were the same which were received in the FSL by Shri Ajay Sehgal in parcel Ext. P5, for examination. 5. The accused was arrested. He was also subjected to medical examination from Dr. Rajesh Thakur. He gave his report Ext. PW6/A. The accused was found fit to perform sexual intercourse, which is not disputed. 6. Doctor (PW7) Mrs. Neena Lal had also taken into possession the salwar (Ext. P4) which was worn by the prosecutrix at the time of her examination.It was sent along with salwar produced by the prosecutrix for forensic examination by making one parcel which is alleged to be Ext. P5. 7. During the investigation of the case, prosecution took into possession the shirt of the prosecutrix, rope Ext. P3 vide memo Ext. PW1/B and also the copy of pariwar register Ext. PW4/A pertaining to the prosecutrix. The site plan Ext. PW3/B of the place of the alleged incident was prepared by the investigating officer. 8. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused.The accused was accordinglychargesheeted for the aforesaid offence; to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses besides examining the prosecutrix. After closure of the evidence the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances which were found attendant upon the accused were denied by him except admitting his MLC Ext. PW6/A conducted by PW6 Dr. Rajesh Thakur. He disputed the FSL report Ext. After closure of the evidence the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances which were found attendant upon the accused were denied by him except admitting his MLC Ext. PW6/A conducted by PW6 Dr. Rajesh Thakur. He disputed the FSL report Ext. PW7/C and alleged that a false case was foisted against him by the prosecutrix in connivance with her father and the police to grab his land. 10. When called upon to enter into his defence, he examined DW1 Smt. Kala Devi. She stated that accused had purchased the land from one Shri Dale Ram and raised orchard thereon. She stated that his land is not adjoining to the land of the prosecutrix. She stated that her house is also situated nearby, but she did not hear any cry of the prosecutrix. She also stated that prosecutrix and her father insisted upon the accused to part with his land in their favour to which he refused. Thus they felt annoyed and foisted a false case. 11. The learned trial Court disbelieved the defence taken by the accused but while relying upon the statement of the prosecutrix, PW2 Ramesh and doctors, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 12.Shri Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the story as propounded by the prosecutrix is not worth inspiring confidence. She has been proved to be major. No marks of violence were noticed by the doctor on her body. Salwar Ext. P1 which was alleged to have been worn by her at the time of alleged incident was not sent for chemical examination to substantiate his point. He referred to the report of forensic science. He also argued that her conduct is not up to the mark and raises a considerable doubt. The statement of PW2 Ramesh is inconsistent to the statement of the prosecutrix, thus no reliance can be put on it. It is further argued that in all eventualities, if the entire facts are looked into dispassionately in the right perspective, at the best these are indicative of consensual intercourse. 13.Contra Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. During the course of the arguments, to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, the necessity to inspect the salwars Ext. P1 and Ext. P4 was felt, therefore, these articles were sent for. 13.Contra Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. During the course of the arguments, to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, the necessity to inspect the salwars Ext. P1 and Ext. P4 was felt, therefore, these articles were sent for. On 31.7.2012 the above case property was produced in the parcel marked as Ext.P5. The condition of the parcel is recorded in the zimini order dated 31.7.2012. On opening it, a rust colour salwar Ext. P1 with a center tear was taken out with an unbroken black coloured string separately and another salwar Ext. P4 was having flowery print, sky blue and brown colours. After perusal, the same were re-packed in the same parcel sealed with Court seal. Its specimen was also affixed on the letter of the Superintendent of police Kullu and returned. So considering the respective contentions, the legal aspect is also required to be seen. 14.There is long line of judicial verdicts rendered by the apex Court that the victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the Court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice. [Please see: State of U.P versus Pappu 2005 (3) SCC 594. 15. Further I am aware that irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be leveled as omissions or contradictions. 16.While appreciating the evidence of witnesses, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witnesses read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. 15. Further I am aware that irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be leveled as omissions or contradictions. 16.While appreciating the evidence of witnesses, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witnesses read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. In nutshell, the statement of the prosecutrix should be confidence inspiring before it is relied upon. 17. Having regard to the above settled principles I proceed to scan the statement of prosecutrix whether it is confidence inspiring, in the light of the other attending circumstances. The prosecutrix when examined in the Court also made the similar statement that her hands were tied and the handkerchief was gagged in her mouth. Accused broke the string of her salwar Ext. P1 and committed rape on her. Thereafter he untied the rope, removed the handkerchief from her mouth and she screamed. Thereafter PW2 Ramesh her cousin came there. He also stated that her shirt was torn. She was taken to her house and from there she was sent to the police station to lodge the FIR. Thereafter she was got medically examined. In cross- examination, the prosecutrix stated that she saw the accused for the first time on the date of the alleged incident though admitted that in the FIR she stated that accused had been visiting his orchard every Sunday. She also stated that when the accused tied her hands, she cried for her father but she was not aware about the intention of the accused. She also stated that after breaking the string of her salwar, it was put off from her body and then committed rape by inserting his private part into her private part. She further stated that on hearing her cries, PW2 Ramesh her cousin reached at the spot. She also stated that after breaking the string of her salwar, it was put off from her body and then committed rape by inserting his private part into her private part. She further stated that on hearing her cries, PW2 Ramesh her cousin reached at the spot. The testimony of prosecutrix stands contradicted on the point of breaking of string of her salwar which was not proved to be so and shirt Ext. P2 was also not found to be torn. 18. Further PW2 Ramesh stated that he had heard the screaming/weeping sound of the prosecutrix in the upper side of his orchard where he was working. The accused was at a distance of about 10 meters. He rushed to the spot and noticed that accused was putting on his pant and the prosecutrix was sitting there. According to him, her salwar was under her knees. He enquired from the prosecutrix, who disclosed about the incident to him. Thereafter he took her to his house and thereafter to the police station. In cross examination, he stated that if some one calls from the orchard of the accused as well as that of the prosecutrix, is not audible in speech. He was also confronted with the statement mark-A recorded by the police wherein it was not found mentioned that salwar of the prosecutrix was on her knees. He also stated that he found the string of the salwar of the prosecutrix broken but when confronted with the above statement recorded by the police, this fact did not find mentioned. Otherwise also as noted above, the string of her salwar is not broken. His testimony is contradictory to the statement of the prosecutrix. He stated that he has seen the accused while putting on his pant when he reached the spot after hearing screams of the prosecutrix but prosecutrix stated that accused after putting on his pant relieved her and took out cloth from her mouth, then she cried. 19.Also the statement of PW7 Dr. Mrs. Neena Lal who examined the prosecutrix is relevant. As already stated above, she did not notice any injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Salwar Ext. P1 which was allegedly worn by her at the time of the alleged incident was sealed and taken into possession and handed over to the police. Even the other salwar Ext. Mrs. Neena Lal who examined the prosecutrix is relevant. As already stated above, she did not notice any injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Salwar Ext. P1 which was allegedly worn by her at the time of the alleged incident was sealed and taken into possession and handed over to the police. Even the other salwar Ext. P4 which was worn by the prosecutrix at the time of her examination was also taken into possession and both these salwars were made into one parcel Ext. P5 and were sent for chemical examination. Pertinently, these items were allegedly deposited in the police malkhana by PW12 H.C. Manoj Kumar on 25.2.2008. The abstract of malkhana register is Ext. PW12/A. On 3.9.2008, these items along with others were sent for forensic Science Laboratory, Junga through constable Pritam. PW13 Gian Chand also stated to have examined both these items which were exhibited as Ext. P5 in the laboratory. But surprisingly the report Ext. PW7/C is contrary to his deposition. It was parcel No. 1 indicated in report, which was containing both the salwars sealed with English letter “CH” Kullu. On opening the said parcel, two salwars 1-A and 1-B were taken out for examination but no rust colour salwar was found therein. Whereas the semens were not detected on salwar 1-(a). It was found on 1-(b) which was allegedly worn by the prosecutrix on the date of her examination. But the report reveals that rust colour salwar was never examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, as alleged. When Ext. P1 and Ext. P4 were sealed in one parcel Ext. P5 then where this rust colour salwar had gone is not known. Though the prosecutrix was exposed to coitus as it is also proved on examining the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix, which were having blood stains though insufficient for further examination but were also having human semens on them as reported in Ext. PW7/C, yet it appears to be with consent. The circumstances are that the rust colour salwar Ext. P1 which was allegedly worn by the prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident, its string as noted was not broken, it was also observed the learned trial Court; when case property was produced before it. This salwar Ext. P1 was not chemically examined in the laboratory as its mention is not found in the examination report Ext.PW7/C. Further, the shirt Ext. This salwar Ext. P1 was not chemically examined in the laboratory as its mention is not found in the examination report Ext.PW7/C. Further, the shirt Ext. P2 which was alleged to have been worn by the prosecutrix was also not found torn. Handkerchief which was used for gagging her mouth is also not recovered. Further, there were no signs of marks in any manner on the body of the prosecutrix nor of the rope Ext. P3 on the hands of the prosecutrix. Also Dr. Mrs. Neena Lal on the vaginal examination of the prosecutrix did not find any mark of injury on external or internal genetalia or any bleeding. Vaginal introitus only admitted one finger. Hymen was also found intact. In the opinion of the doctor, there was no physical interference with the external genetalia. All this go to show that she was exposed to coitus but a consensual one. 20.The above proved circumstances are enough to draw presumption that the prosecutrix and the accused might have been seen by PW2 in a compromising position. Finding it difficult to explain, the prosecutrix alleged rape on her though circumstances point-out towards consent. 21.Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the age of the prosecutrix would assume importance. As per radiographic examination, she has been opined to be between 15 to 17 years of age. Giving reasonable margin of error, she comes to more than 18 years of age. The prosecution also seeks assistance from the copy of Pariwar register to prove her age, where her age is written on estimation. The birth certificate is neither on record nor her actual date of birth has been proved by examining any of her parents. The learned trial Court rightly took the view that in absence of the cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the alleged incident to which I affirm. Since the prosecutrix is proved to be more than the age of discretion and in all probabilities it was a consensual intercourse, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, in my view, is liable to be set aside. 22. Thus for the reasons aforesaid, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 22. Thus for the reasons aforesaid, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. The accused is lodged in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, deposited, be refunded to the accused. 23. The Registry of this Court is directed to issue release warrant of the accused to the Superintendent Jail concerned, in conformity with this judgment.