Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. A complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranikhet by the complainant Km. Devki Sharma against the accused persons as regards offences punishable under Sections 376, 365, 201, 312, 450, 420 and 506/34 of I.P.C.. According to the complainant, she along with her family members were residing in a hilly backward area at village Katariya Talla, Patty Malla Salt, P.O. Manhait, G.P.O. Maulekhal, Almora, where police assistance was not readily available when needed. There were difficulties in getting medical assistance. Communications and transport were almost non-existent. The complainant was an innocent and homely girl of about 19 years old and living at the aforesaid address along with her mother, brother and sisters. Father of the complainant was employed in Delhi in a private firm and the complainant’s father used to visit his native place, as and when he got time. The complainant and her family members were very poor and backward persons and were living only on the basis of yields resulting from small agriculture land in the village. Basically the family was very poor and sometimes had to pass hungry nights. 2. The complainant and her family members were living in a backward hilly area and due to the backwardness, people of the area were facing hardships in the field of communication, transport and medical facility, and above all, due to monetary crises and financial sources, the complainant and her family members faced lot of problems regarding her complaint to reach its destination/concerned authorities for necessary action. The accused no. 1 (appellant) was a street roaming boy who indulged in illegal activities along with other goonda elements of the village and created nuisance and obscene activities in the village. 3. Prosecution story is that on 10th May, 1993 and on 02nd July, 1993, the complainant remained alone in her house during night hours, as her mother had gone to Delhi and returned back to her home town in the month of September 1993. Her mother was shocked to notice that her daughter (complainant) was having an enlarged belly and also occasionally vomited and then she became suspicious about her daughter’s pregnancy. Then she forcefully enquired from her daughter (complainant) who was initially hesitant to tell her mother about the incident but however (she) revealed her mother that she was raped by the accused no. Then she forcefully enquired from her daughter (complainant) who was initially hesitant to tell her mother about the incident but however (she) revealed her mother that she was raped by the accused no. 1 (Lalit Sharma) on the above mentioned dates. The accused Lalit Sharma usually came to her house when she was alone and used to molest her and indulge in sexual activities. Accused Lalit Sharma told her that nothing will happen on doing these sexual activities. She being innocent and minor girl, (she) was not aware about the consequences. He also told her that she should not tell about this incident to any other person because if she did, then no other person will marry her and it would create a stigma/slur on her. Accused told the complainant that he will marry her. On listening the whole story, the mother of the complainant was shocked, stunned and started crying. She complained to Head of the Village, Area Patwari/Kanoongo (Devikhal Area) at Bhawali, Almora (Salt) U.P. and to the accused no. 2 Gopal Datt Sharma (father of Lalit Sharma), who pressurized the complainant and her mother not to make the matter worse and assured that he would take care of the matter himself and that they should not worry at all. But before the complainant’s father could reach the village, he (accused no. 2) along with some persons took her (complainant) away and got her aborted forcibly and illegally with the help of a nurse named Ms. Pushpa Pandey. All this was done before the complainant’s father reached the village. The accused no. 2 Gopal Dutt threatened the complainant and her mother not to tell her husband about this incident and if she did so, he would spoil the life of the complainant. 4. The complainant’s mother sent her brother to Delhi to tell her husband about the incident and bring her husband back to the village immediately. When the complainant’s father reached the village, he immediately brought the incident to the knowledge of Head of the village and local Patwari and one social organization by the name of “Gram Sudhar Sangathan (Regd.)” intervened in the matter. It was then decided that some amicable solution should be worked out and a meeting was organized on 22nd, 23rd and 24th October 1993. It was then decided that some amicable solution should be worked out and a meeting was organized on 22nd, 23rd and 24th October 1993. The said meeting was attended by the members of the said Social Organisation, elders of the village, Area Patwari, Head of the Village, former Head of the Village, Freedom fighter Ganeshi Datt Bhatt, Gopal Datt Sharma and four other mediators namely Surendra Singh Mahait, Ganga Singh Negi Mahait, Ganga Datt @ Baraub Datt Oakuwak (father in law of the elder son of the accused no. 2) and the father of the complainant. It was decided in this meeting that since accused no. 2 (Gopal Datt Sharma) had accepted that his son and he himself committed the serious and heinous crime, then he would get his son married to the complainant on or before 31st May, 1994 but inspite of such agreement, the accused no.2 (Gopal Datt Sharma) failed to surrender his son i.e. the accused no. 1 (Lalit Sharma) and also failed to arrange the marriage till date. By the attitude of the accused no. 2, it appeared that he deliberately and intentionally delayed the matter. The incident was admitted the accused no. 2 in his letter addressed to his elder son Suresh Chand Sharma, which letter was somehow procured and got photocopied by the complainant and was enclosed with the complaint. 5. The father of the complainant also knocked the door of the District Magistrate, and moved complaint dated 12.07.1994. The complainant’s father wrote another letter to the District Magistrate on 14.09.1994 complaining about the delay in holding the enquiry with respect to the whole incident. Complainant’s father also sent a copy of letter dated 12.07.1994 to one Social Organisation, which too forwarded the letter dated 02.08.1994 to the District Magistrate, Almora for taking necessary and immediate action in the matter. After that the complainant’s father also sent a letter dated 14.01.1995 to the Chief Minister (U.P.) in order to get justice. Besides this, Gram Sudhar Sangathan (a social organization) also sent a letter dated 15.02.1995 to the accused no. 2 (Gopal Datt Sharma) to follow the agreement dated 24.10.1993 with immediate effect. Efforts of the complainant’s father yielded some fruits and a letter dated 09.02.1995 was received by him from the Education Minister, U.P. stating that the complaint was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Almora. 2 (Gopal Datt Sharma) to follow the agreement dated 24.10.1993 with immediate effect. Efforts of the complainant’s father yielded some fruits and a letter dated 09.02.1995 was received by him from the Education Minister, U.P. stating that the complaint was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Almora. The complainant’s father, on seeing that no action was taken against the culprits, he further wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of India and he also sent a letter to Chief Minister, U.P. on 03.06.1995. The Prime Minister Office acknowledged vide letter dated 14.06.1995 stating that a direction was sent to the U.P. Government for taking the necessary action. On 17.07.1995, the Prime Minister’s office further responded to the complainant’s father. After that, a letter was received from the D.M. Office in which it was stated that the alleged incident of rape had taken place in the month of July 1993, but abortion did not take place. D.M.’s Office came to the conclusion that without giving any personal hearing to the victim and her father, no action could be taken. A letter reply dated 08.11.1995 along with all relevant evidence/documents was personally handed over to the D.M. by complainant’s father stating that although the inquiry was instituted but it was not fair and that the compromise shown in the said impugned letter was totally false because on that date he was in Delhi. It was written by the DM’s office that the sexual activity was committed with the consent of the victim/complainant. The complainant’s father wrote letters on 22.11.1995, 15.12.1995 and 22.01.1996 to the D.M. stating that the inquiry done was totally one sided. A letter dated 15.01.1996, was also written to the Governor of U.P. in which the complainant’s father stated that the inquiry has not yet been done The complainant was a poor girl and came before the Court with clean hands to seek justice. 6. It was submitted that the rape is one of the most serious and heinous offences against the female. It is extremely difficult for such a victim to live a normal life. Hence, the court should take cognizance of the offence and serious view of rape of minor girl be taken and the culprits be punished deterrently. 7. Thus, according to the complainant, the accused no. 1 (Lalit Sharma) trespassed during the night hours, raped the complainant and the accused no. Hence, the court should take cognizance of the offence and serious view of rape of minor girl be taken and the culprits be punished deterrently. 7. Thus, according to the complainant, the accused no. 1 (Lalit Sharma) trespassed during the night hours, raped the complainant and the accused no. 2 (Gopal Datt Sharma), got the abortion done illegally, threatened the family with dire consequences, and manipulated the compromise. It was submitted that the accused Lalit Sharma committed repeated rape after enticing the minor girl and hence committed the offence under Section 376 r/w Section 365 and further, he trespassed into the house of the complainant with the intention to commit rape and hence accused was liable for commission for offence under Section 450 I.P.C. Accused no. 2 (Gopal Datt Sharma) who was a Government employee, destroyed the evidence of pregnancy and caused miscarriage after forcefully taking the girl (complainant) to the unknown hospital/doctor with the help of a nurse named Ms. Pushpa Pande for the illegal abortion and hence accused no. 2 was liable for the offence under Sections 201 and 312 of I.P.C. He deliberately and with some ulterior motive, settled the heinous crime in the Panchayat of the village conducted by one social organization ‘Gram Sudhar Sangathan’ so that he could seek sometime to tamper the evidence, hence played a fraud and was liable for commission of offence under Section 420 of I.P.C.. Accused no. 2 also threatened the complainant and her family members, thus committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C.. The cause of action arose in District Almora, both the parties were permanent residents of Almora (Salt) U.P. and hence Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet had jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter. 8. The statement of the complainant (Km. Devki Sharma) was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which she (victim) supported the contents of the complaint. The statement of Ganesh Datt and Madan Prakash were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When trial commenced and prosecution opened it’s case, the charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. was framed against the accused Lalit Sharma, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge against the co-accused Goptal Datt Sharma was framed in respect of offences punishable under Sections 312 and 201 of I.P.C., who also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. Charge against the co-accused Goptal Datt Sharma was framed in respect of offences punishable under Sections 312 and 201 of I.P.C., who also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. Two witnesses, namely, PW1 Km. Devki Sharma and PW2 Raghuwar Dutt Joshi were examined on behalf of the complainant/prosecution. After the complainant’s evidence was over, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which the accused persons said that they were falsely implicated in the case. They also said that the prosecution witnesses were telling a lie. They also offered to give evidence in defence, but no such evidence was given. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Court below acquitted accused Gopal Datt Sharma of the charges levelled against him, but convicted accused Lalit Sharma in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.. Accused Lalit Sharma was sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, present criminal appeal was preferred. 11. It may be mentioned at the very outset that no document has been proved on behalf of the complainant. A description of number of letters/representations/replies was given in the complaint, but, to utter surprise of this Court, no document has been proved. A mention of so many enclosures has been made in the complaint, but no person was brought into the witness box to authenticate such enclosures. 12. No F.I.R. was lodged in the instant case and no satisfactory explanation was given for not approaching the Higher Official(s) of the police department (Section 154 Cr.P.C.). The Magistrate was not moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for directing the police to lodge First Information Report. Although the copies of the letters addressed to the Prime Minister of India, Chief Minister of U.P. and District Magistrate were enclosed, but the same were not proved. Mere mention of those letters would not have done any good to the prosecution. There is delay in lodging the complaint. Although the copies of the letters addressed to the Prime Minister of India, Chief Minister of U.P. and District Magistrate were enclosed, but the same were not proved. Mere mention of those letters would not have done any good to the prosecution. There is delay in lodging the complaint. Although there are catenna of rulings by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there is often delay in lodging first information report in such crimes, yet even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that the delay in filing complaint has been satisfactory explained, still yet there are such glaring lacunae in the prosecution story that it is not possible for a reasonable and prudent person to accept the same beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Although the evidence of prosecutrix in such cases in normal circumstances is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused, but the quality of such evidence should inspire confidence of the Court. Unfortunately, such quality is lacking in the instant case. 13. PW1 Km. Devki Sharma, in the course of her examination-in-chief, said that in the year 1993, her mother was away at Delhi. Her father also used to do a job in Delhi. Her younger brother and her elder sister lived with her (PW1). Her younger brother used to go to school and her elder sister used to go to field to cut the grass. When PW1 Km. Devki Sharma (victim) was all alone in her house, Lalit Sharma used to come (in the absence of victim’s elder sister and younger brother). In August, 1993 accused came to her house. PW1 (victim) was reading a book. Accused came to her room and committed rape with her. Accused said that he will be marrying with her. When accused Lalit Sharma said so, she gave her consent. PW1 said that accused sexually assaulted her for many a days. 14. She admitted that she did not complain to anybody regarding the aforesaid incident. She further told in her cross examination that accused threatened her and said that he will not marry her (Devki Sharma), if she disclosed the incident to anyone. After a few days of the incident, she (Km. Devki Sharma) conceived a child. She was taken to Rudrapur Hospital by one nurse of Devakhal, namely Pushpa Pandey. Such nurse was not produced before the trial court. After a few days of the incident, she (Km. Devki Sharma) conceived a child. She was taken to Rudrapur Hospital by one nurse of Devakhal, namely Pushpa Pandey. Such nurse was not produced before the trial court. Although, she was examined before the committing court, but she did not support complaint version. The expenses were borne by Gopal Dutt Sharma (father of the accused Lalit Sharma). She came back from Rudrapur Hospital to Devakhal. When her father came from Delhi, PW1 told the incident to her father. After that, a meeting was convened in which Gopal Dutt Sharma (father of the accused) apologized and gave assurance that Lalit Sharma would be married to PW1, but the marriage could not take place. In her cross examination, she also said that many a people resided in her neighborhood. When the incident took place, during those days she was studying in Junior High School, which was situated at a distance of 40-50 miles from her house. She used to go to her school on foot. She used to go to her school regularly. Her mother went to Delhi in February, 1993. Accused Lalit Sharma started coming to her house after that. Accused committed rape in February, 1993. He used to visit her house regularly till September 1993. She admitted that she did not tell about the incident to her elder sister. 15. According to her own admission, accused committed rape with her daily from February, 1993 to September, 1993. In normal circumstances there is pregnancy of advanced stage during seven months. The abortion usually takes place only when the life of mother or the life of child is in danger. According to her, she was given assurance by the accused that he will marry her. She also admitted in her cross examination that she did not report the incident to Patwari Kanoongo. She was not aware whether her father reported the matter to Patwari Kanoongo or not. The complaint was drafted by a lawyer who was practicing in Patiala House, Delhi. The advocate brought the draft of the complaint to Ranikhet, where she put her signature on the compliant. She also admitted that she was not medically examined. A suggestion was given to her that when Lalit Sharma refused to marry her, only then the complaint was lodged to pressurise him, to which suggestion she denied. 16. The advocate brought the draft of the complaint to Ranikhet, where she put her signature on the compliant. She also admitted that she was not medically examined. A suggestion was given to her that when Lalit Sharma refused to marry her, only then the complaint was lodged to pressurise him, to which suggestion she denied. 16. According to her own admission, she was not medically examined so there is no medical report. No one came forward to say that she was pregnant and her pregnancy was terminated. There was no evidence of termination her pregnancy. There was no proof regarding the age of prosecutrix. It may also be pointed out that no document was filed to show that she (Km. Devki Sharma) was below sixteen years of age, when rape was committed to her. It may also to be noted here that the age of consent under Section 375 Cr.P.C. is sixteen years. 17. It is the admission of the prosecutrix that she (prosecutrix) consented for having sex when accused Lalit Sharma said that he will marry her. The same would have been immaterial, had it be shown that she was below sixteen years of age when the incident took place. Consent in such a situation was immaterial. But if the victim was more than 16 years of age and gave the consent for having sex, then no offence under Section 375 I.P.C. is made out. Unfortunately, in the instant case, there was no proof of the age of girl. The prosecutrix was not medically examined. There was no medical evidence to prove termination of her pregnancy. No doubt the sole testimony of the prosecutrix would have been admissible in evidence and the conviction of the accused could have sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but unfortunately the quality of evidence which is required in such cases is lacking, so as to inspire the confidence of the Court. 18. If we look at the judgment of learned Court below, the same reveals that the conviction was based upon the evidence tendered by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. such statements are recorded by the Magistrate, in order to find out whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons for the purpose of summoning them to face the trial or not? The conviction cannot sustain on the basis of statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and Section 202 Cr.P.C. in the complaint case. The conviction against the accused could be recorded only on the basis of evidence tendered before the trial court and not before the committing court. The nature of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., is a complaint case is the same, as that of the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is a police case. The same could be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction. Surprisingly, the same was used by the learned Court below for convicting the accused, which was not permissible. The delay in filing the complaint could have been ignored while convicting the accused. Consent, if any, of PW1 under deception could also have been ignored, had the version of prosecutrix been supported by some medical evidence. There is nothing on record except the fragile testimony of PW1 Km. Devki Sharma to support the prosecution story. PW2 Raghwar Datt Joshi was simply a witness of extra-judicial confession, which, from the pointed of view of its nature, is very weak type of evidence. There is hardly anything on record except the testimony of the prosecutrix and the testimony of a witness of extra judicial confession. Nothing more, nothing less. The conviction cannot sustain on the basis of such evidence which does not inspire confidence. No document is proved. No letter, application etc. is proved by the complainant. The nurse Smt. Pushpa Pandey was produced, but under Section 202 Cr.P.C., in which she denied that she ever took the victim to Rudrapur Hospital for abortion. Prosecution was not able prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the convict-appellant Lalit Sharma is thus allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1997 is hereby set aside. The conviction of the appellant and sentence awarded to him are also set aside. The accused-convict is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. Let the lower court record be sent back.