1. This criminal appeal aims at and seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 9th May, 2006, hereinafter for short impugned judgment, by virtue of which the respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them in case titled State v. Shabir Ahmad Khan and others, bearing FIR No. 41/2001 of police station Maisuma, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376/109, of the Ranbir Penal Code, for short RFC. BRIEF FACTS 2. Police Station Maisuma, after having registered a report, lodged by PW1, to the effect that during the intervening night of 14th/15th May, 2001, when she was staying in a houseboat at Srinagar along with her brother-in-law, PW no. 2, some unknown persons, who were later identified as respondents, made their entry into her room and respondent no. 1, forcibly, gagged her mouth and raped her. She fell unconscious and regained consciousness only in the morning, therefore, cannot say whether all the accused raped her or not. 3. Police, on registering said report as FIR No. 41/2001, investigated the matter, which resulted in filing of a final report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short as Cr.P.C., before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, who transferred the same to the trial court. The accused no. 1 was charged for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of RFC, while as the other accused were chargesheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 109 of RFC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution, in support of its case, produced and examined PWs Ghulam Rasool, Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh, Prosecutrix, Ghulam Hassan Mir and Dr. Nuzhat. 5. PW Ghulam Rasool, Investigating Officer, has deposed that Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh, houseboat owner informed the police about the incident and investigation was conducted and ultimately Challan was presented against the accused. The medical evidence on the file has made the investigating agency to present challan against accused No. 1, Shabir Ahmad, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 RFC and against rest of the accused under Section 109 RFC. 6. Statement of the accused was recorded in terms of Section 342 of Cr.P.C. 7. PW Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh, has deposed that prosecutrix and her brother-in-law, Ghulam Hassan, had taken a room on 15th May, 2001, on rent. 6. Statement of the accused was recorded in terms of Section 342 of Cr.P.C. 7. PW Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh, has deposed that prosecutrix and her brother-in-law, Ghulam Hassan, had taken a room on 15th May, 2001, on rent. The male member i.e. Ghulam Hassan Mir, informed him that accused had raped her. In cross examination, he has stated that the room was rented out to prosecutrix, PW 1 and PW 2 Ghulam Hassan Mir and they were registered as husband and wife and not as brother-in-law and sister-in-law. 8. Prosecutrix has deposed that accused No. 1 raped her and other accused were also inside the room and she lodged a report in the police station. In cross-examination she has stated that in the year 1990, she was a student of 9th class and was residing in the house of her brother-in-law. She was being medically treated. On the fateful night she had come to Srinagar for medical treatment and stayed in the houseboat. She is unmarried and she has had no such sexual intercourse till the\date of occurrence. She has not reported the matter to anyone but has straightway gone to police to lodge the report. Further she has stated that after being raped by accused no. 1, she fell unconscious and regained her consciousness in the morning, therefore, cannot say as to whether she was raped by other accused also. 9. PW Ghulam Hassan Mir, brother-in-law, of the prosecutrix, though shown as her husband in the houseboat records, stated that they had stayed in the houseboat, hired one room. Police had come on spot and at the relevant point of time and arrested the accused. 10. PW Dr. Nuzhat has stated that she has examined the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was aged between 18 to 20 years. That there was no mark of violence on any part of the body and no spermatozoa was found. In cross examination she has stated that prosecutrix is habitual to intercourse and no intercourse has taken place within a span of three days as per the examination of vaginal smear. 11. Trial court after hearing counsel for the parties and after scanning the evidence, vide judgment impugned, held that prosecution story is doubtful, therefore, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitted them of the charges and dismissed the challan. 12. 11. Trial court after hearing counsel for the parties and after scanning the evidence, vide judgment impugned, held that prosecution story is doubtful, therefore, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitted them of the charges and dismissed the challan. 12. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned judgment herein, thus: "After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after keeping in mind, the contentions of the rival parties, I am of the opinion that the prosecution story has become doubtful not for one reason but for various reasons. Even if it is presumed to be true that the alleged prosecutrix was subjected to rape by one of the accused who forced his entry in her room when she was staying in her room with her brother-in-law, it could have been easily corroborated by PW-2 who was the best person to narrate the whole story and gave the correct testimony before the police as also before this court. The prosecutrix in her FIR has stated that in the morning she called the houseboat owner and informed him about the occurrence who in turn reported the matter to the police but the prosecution story as contained in the charge sheet gives a different version because it has been stated in the charge sheet that it was Mst. Haseena on whose written report the case was registered against the accused. The alleged prosecutrix has not been able to support her own case while being examined before this court because she has in so many words stated that when the house-boat owner came to know about the occurrence he approached her and enquired about the occurrence and thereafter he reported the matter to the police. She has deposed in her own statement that they reached Srinagar late in the evening and stayed in the houseboat for the night to go for medical examination on the following day. However the PW-2 who was accompanying her has stated that they had consulted the doctor the day earlier when they came to Srinagar. The alleged prosecutrix has admittedly stated that she was suffering from some stomach problem but her brother-in-law (PW-2) has stated that she was suffering from some tooth ache...." 13. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the counsel for the parties. 14. The alleged prosecutrix has admittedly stated that she was suffering from some stomach problem but her brother-in-law (PW-2) has stated that she was suffering from some tooth ache...." 13. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the counsel for the parties. 14. The trial court after deriving satisfaction that rudiments constituting commission of offence are not fulfilled and after having regard to the severity of the punishment that would be awarded to the accused in case charge is proved, acquitted them. 15. The trial court appears to have been alive to the situation and conscious of the punishment that the alleged allegations carry, therefore, has rightly disagreed with the doubtful prosecution version. 16. The prosecution story, right from the word go is hazy and shrouded in mystery. The genuineness of the complaint itself is trivial, for, the reason of the prosecutrix's visit to Srinagar with her brother-in-law, in the first instance, is incredulous, their registration in the houseboat as husband and wife and subsequent stay in one room is outlandish. All these factors add to the otherwise doubtful affair of the prosecutrix and her brother-in-law. The story gets more flawed when the respondents/accused are tried to be implicated in a heinous offence of rape, for, the respondents' and the complainant party belong to and hail from the same area. The resounding medical evidence on record strikes at the root of what remains in the complaint. 17. We feel that there is no scope for different opinion in the matter, therefore, the one taken by the trial court is endorsed and upheld. 18. The appeal, on the above terms, is dismissed. 19. Send down the record