JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. IN these appeals filed under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused Manoj Kumar and Madan Lal @ Sonu have assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 5-FTC/7 of 2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Madan Lal @ Sonu and another, whereby accused Madan Lal @ Sonu stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 344, 376, 363, 366 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and accused Manoj Kumar stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 363, 366 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Madan Lal @ Sonu is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof suffer imprisonment for six months in relation to offence punishable under Section 344 IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 376 IPC; five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 366 IPC; five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 120B IPC (for 363 IPC) and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 120B IPC (for 366 IPC). Accused Manoj Kumar is sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 366 IPC; five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 120B IPC (for 363 IPC); and five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 120B IPC (for 366 IPC). 2. IT is the case of prosecution that on 10.3.2008 Smt. Devki Devi (PW-1) and her grand daughter i.e. the prosecutrix (PW-2) had gone to the jungle for grazing cattle and bringing grass and wood. Same day at about 3.00 p.m. while they were returning carrying bundles of grass and wood on their head, accused Madan Lal @ Sonu came on the grass land, caught the prosecutrix from her arms and forcibly took her away. Prosecutrix raised alarm. Smt. Devki Devi tried to intervene but was pushed as a result of which she fell down. Accused Madan Lal @ Sonu took the prosecutrix to the road side where accused Manoj Kumar was waiting in a vehicle (jeep) bearing No. HP 14A 1807. Both the accused made the prosecutrix sit in the jeep and took her away to a place on the National Highway somewhere between Kalka and Solan. Thereafter, at about 9.00 9.30 p.m. accused Madan Lal @ Sonu took the prosecutrix to an abandoned house in a jungle which had no doors and windows, where she was confined and detained for ten days and subjected her to rape. At that time, prosecutrix was seventeen years of age. In the meanwhile, Smt. Devki Devi (PW-1) went to her house, informed her daughter-in-law and reported the matter to the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Anji, Sh. Bhupender Singh (PW-8), who in turn informed the police. On 10.3.2008 itself at about 4.10 p.m., SI-Rupender Kumar (PW-19) recorded statement (Ext. PW-1/A) of Smt. Devki Devi (PW-1), on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 56/2008 dated 10.3.2008 (Ext. Bhupender Singh (PW-8), who in turn informed the police. On 10.3.2008 itself at about 4.10 p.m., SI-Rupender Kumar (PW-19) recorded statement (Ext. PW-1/A) of Smt. Devki Devi (PW-1), on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 56/2008 dated 10.3.2008 (Ext. PW 15/B) was registered against both the accused at Police Station Solan Sadar, Distt. Solan, by SI-Jodha Ram (PW- 15) under the provisions of Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Flash message was sent by the police and the vehicle was intercepted at Parwanoo Check Post where accused Manoj Kumar was arrested and vehicle seized. Investigation revealed that the vehicle belonged to Smt. Tara Devi (PW-9) who had engaged accused Madan Lal @ Sonu as its driver. On 19.3.2008 police recovered the prosecutrix from a house where she was lodged by accused Madan Lal. Police recorded her statement. She was taken to the Regional Hospital at Solan, where she was examined by Dr. Poonam Sharma (PW-3) who issued MLC (Ext. PW- /B). Accused Madan Lal was also got medically examined from Dr. R. K. Sharma (PW-4) who issued MLC (Ext. PW-4/B). From the spot of crime, i.e. place where prosecutrix was kidnapped and subsequently confined, various incriminating articles belonging to the prosecutrix were recovered. Investigation revealed that prosecutrix was less than eighteen years of age; she was kidnapped by both the accused; accused Madan Lal confined/detained her at a particular place and then raped her. Accused Manoj Kumar conspired in her abduction. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused Madan Lal was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 344 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Manoj Kumar was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 120-B, 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as nineteen witnesses and the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which they pleaded false implication. 4. APPRECIATING the material placed on record by the prosecution, trial Court convicted the accused for all the charged offences. Hence the present appeals. 4. APPRECIATING the material placed on record by the prosecution, trial Court convicted the accused for all the charged offences. Hence the present appeals. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that trial Court committed grave illegality by not correctly and completely appreciating the evidence, including the testimonies of the relevant witnesses, which has resulted into travesty and miscarriage of justice causing serious prejudice to both the accused persons. 5. TO determine the guilt of the accused, trial Court framed the following points for determination: "6. In this case the following points arise for determination: (1) Whether Madan Lal and Manoj Kumar agreed to commit offence of kidnapping punishable with imprisonment? (2) Whether accused Madan Lal and Manoj Kumar pursuant to conspiracy kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor, on 10.3.2008, from the lawful guardianship of her parents? (3) Whether accused Madan Lal and Manoj Kumar pursuant to conspiracy kidnapped the prosecutrix to compel her for marriage? (4) Whether accused Madan Lal wrongfully confined the prosecutrix, in a secluded/abandoned house at Snwara for 10 days? (5) Whether accused Madan Lal committed rape on the prosecutrix, a minor girl, forcibly and against her consent/wish? (6) Final Order." 6. TRIAL Court found that there was direct evidence in relation to the charged offence and while arriving at such conclusion, heavily relied upon the testimonies of Smt. Devki Devi (PW-1), prosecutrix (PW-2), Sh. Dhani Ram (PW-6) and Sh. Bhupender Singh (PW-8). The first question which needs to be considered is the age of the prosecutrix. In this regard prosecution has placed reliance upon the birth certificate (Ext. A1) of the prosecutrix which records her date of birth to be 15.1.1991. The alleged offence took place on 7. 3.2008. THUS age of the prosecutrix stands established on record by the prosecution to be seventeen years and two months. 10. The next question which needs to be considered is as to whether there was any conspiracy on the part of both the accused to kidnap the prosecution and as to whether she was forcibly removed from the lawful guardianship of her parents/grand-mother. In this regard, I find that the findings returned by the Court below are absolutely erroneous. I find that the Court below, without discussing has merely reproduced the evidence, and that too in part. 8. In this regard, I find that the findings returned by the Court below are absolutely erroneous. I find that the Court below, without discussing has merely reproduced the evidence, and that too in part. 8. IT is a settled principle of law that an accused can be convicted not on the basis of mere suspicion, but on the basis of clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. Plurality of witnesses and volume of evidence would not matter. What would really matter is as to whether the genesis of crime and testimony of prosecution witness(s) inspires confidence or not. Sole testimony of a prosecutrix would be sufficient enough, if it inspires confidence, to convict the accused. Though Smt. Devki Devi (PW-1) in her examination-in-chief has made a statement as the prosecution wants the Court to believe but however in cross examination she has come out with the truth rendering the prosecution case to be absolutely false. Initially she states that she and the prosecutrix were returning from the jungle carrying grass and wood on their head. At that time accused Madan Lal threw the bundle of grass, caught hold of the prosecutrix from her arms and took her towards the road. Prosecutrix asked him to release her. Significantly she admits that at that time, prosecutrix was 15 paces ahead of her. When she tried to reach the place from where prosecutrix was kidnapped, she neither saw the accused nor the prosecutrix. She also fell down. After she reached the road, she noticed two boys sitting on the parapet, who informed her that "the boy and girl had gone towards Kumarhatti". She came home, told her daughter-in-law, who in turn called Sh. Bhupender Singh (PW- 8). Police reached the spot and recorded her statement. Further from her testimony it is apparent that both the prosecutrix and accused Madan Lal knew each other from before and had some relationship. Now significantly, she admits that she had no intention of marrying accused Madan Lal with the prosecutrix. Further she admits that one Hira Lal, who was also grazing his sheep was present on the spot at the time when prosecutrix was kidnapped. Now significantly prosecution has neither associated this Hira Lal or the two boys who were present on the spot, with whom she had had interaction. Why so? has not been explained. Further she admits that one Hira Lal, who was also grazing his sheep was present on the spot at the time when prosecutrix was kidnapped. Now significantly prosecution has neither associated this Hira Lal or the two boys who were present on the spot, with whom she had had interaction. Why so? has not been explained. Be that as it may, this witness admits that accused had not threatened her nor did any scuffle take place on the spot. This witness also admits that since she was carrying bundle of grass on her head, her view stood obstructed and there is a deep descent towards the National Highway where the vehicle was parked in which prosecutrix was taken away. Now if this witness could not see the prosecutrix or the accused and her view was obstructed, then obviously her statement that accused kidnapped the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence, more so, for the reason that the witness admits in her cross examination that the place where the vehicle was parked there is a dhaba of Sh. Durgu Ram and house of Sh. Ratti Ram where family members reside. She admits that Sh. Manoj and Sh. Mansa Ram met her on the road. Now none of them were either examined by the prosecution in Court or joined in investigation by the police. She also did not disclose the occurrence of the incident to any one of the persons she met or were present on the spot or nearby. The incident took place at 11.00 a.m. and matter was reported only at 4.00 p.m. But what shatters the foundation of the prosecution case is the version of this witness who states that "it is correct that prior to the occurrence prosecutrix (name withheld) had also gone with the accused Madan and a report was lodged. It is correct that prosecutrix (name withheld) wants to marry accused Madan but we are objecting to it. I do not know that on the day of occurrence prosecutrix (name withheld) at her own free will went with Sonu this can be asked from girl". 9. It is correct that prosecutrix (name withheld) wants to marry accused Madan but we are objecting to it. I do not know that on the day of occurrence prosecutrix (name withheld) at her own free will went with Sonu this can be asked from girl". 9. COMING to the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2), it be only observed that no doubt initially she has tried to corroborate the testimony of her grand-mother (PW-1), but later on admits that in the month of June, 2007, accused Madan Lal had given her a mobile phone and also written letters to her. She states that accused Manoj Kumar is her brother in relation. She admits that she did not suffer any injury at the time when she was dragged on the ground at the time when she was kidnapped. Noticeably the place from where she was kidnapped there was a deep gorge and descent up to the national highway where the vehicle was parked. She states that she had raised alarm at the time when accused kidnapped her. But this testimony of her does not inspire confidence. Had it been so, then the persons mentioned by PW-1 in her testimony, would have definitely heard her cries and rescued her. It appears that she left the spot of her own free will, which fact, is evident from her admission to the effect that at the time when she was recovered by the police she was having 'bindi', 'lipstick' and 'sindoor' applied on her body. She admits that she had telephoned accused Madan from the house of Budh Ram (not examined) and told him that in case he wanted to marry her, he should talk to her parents. She admits that accused Manoj was a frequent visitor to her house. Her parents had objected to the visits of accused Madan to the house of accused Manoj. She admits that she had been frequently speaking to the accused Madan Lal on telephone and in fact her parents had disconnected the telephone line only for this reason. Thereafter he had also given her a mobile phone. Parties were even exchanging photographs with each other. 10. NOW all this shows the extent of intimate relationship which the prosecutrix was having and enjoying with accused Madan Lal. Thereafter he had also given her a mobile phone. Parties were even exchanging photographs with each other. 10. NOW all this shows the extent of intimate relationship which the prosecutrix was having and enjoying with accused Madan Lal. Quite apparently she had prior relations and voluntarily went in the jeep, with both the accused persons, one of whom happened to be her brother in relation. In fact, this view stands fortified through the testimony of Dr. Poonam Sharma (PW-3) who, in her unrebutted testimony, has deposed that at the time when prosecutrix was examined, she was dressed as a bride had voluntarily made statement as recorded in the MLC (Ext. PW 3/B), and disclosed to her that "she had run away with a boy at her own will 10 days ago". In my considered view, prosecutrix nowhere resisted, put up any struggle or raised alarm, attracting the attention of passersby. After all, she was allegedly abducted in broad day light when passersby were present. She left on her own free and independent volition. She left the protected umbrella of her guardians of her own free and independent volition. She was a willing party and left of her own sweet will in the company of both the accused. It be also observed that HHC-Mast Ram (PW-16) who was posted within the jurisdiction of Police Post Saproon has deposed that on 10.3.2008 he had received information that " a boy and a girl had run away". Thus even as per police, information was not of abduction but elopement which version stands deposed by Doctor (PW-3). 11. PROSECUTION has examined Sh. Dhani Ram (PW-6), father of the prosecutrix to establish recovery of articles, including apparels of the prosecutrix. Now significantly this witness also admits that the accused had desired to marry his daughter and in fact had kidnapped her for such purpose. Now recovery of apparels is effected on 11.3.2008 and 14.3.2008. Incidentally, the grand- mother (PW-1) does not state that any such item was left by the prosecutrix on the spot. Be that as it may, recovery of articles does not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution in the backdrop of the fact that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused. Incidentally, the grand- mother (PW-1) does not state that any such item was left by the prosecutrix on the spot. Be that as it may, recovery of articles does not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution in the backdrop of the fact that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused. This witness mentions that on 5.7.2007 he had lodged a complaint with the police, alleging misbehaviour on the part of accused Madan Lal, which version in fact is supported by Sh. Bhupender Singh (PW-8). Now incidentally this complaint was lodged by the father and not the prosecutrix. No doubt, accused agreed to mend his ways but then this past conduct, in no manner, establishes his guilt, more so, in the light of testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. 12. SMT. Tara Devi (PW-9) is the owner of the vehicle, who has deposed that she had engaged accused Madan Lal as a driver on the vehicle. She received a telephonic message from the police. Witnesses Sh. Jai Singh (PW-7) and Sh. Bhupender Singh (PW-8) only establish that the vehicle belonging to Smt. Tara Devi (PW-9) was driven by accused Madan Lal in which accused Manoj Kumar and the prosecutrix were present. However, in the backdrop of testimony of the other relevant witnesses their testimony to establish the prosecution case pales into insignificance. Thus, to my mind, findings returned by the Court below to the effect that the prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused persons and forcibly taken away in a jeep cannot be said to be based on any legal evidence or appreciation thereof on sound principles of law. 13. THE next question which needs to be considered is as to whether prosecutrix was confined by accused Madan Lal in a secluded/abandoned house at Sanwara jungle, for more than ten days or not? In this regard reliance is placed upon the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-2) and Sh. Sikandar (PW-18). Now prosecutrix admits that for ten days, both she and accused Madan Lal @ Sonu remained together in the abandoned house. She admits that this place was at a walking distance of two hours. She admits that her hands and mouth were not tied. She admits that she had changed her clothes in the house. She admits that she had made statement to the Doctor voluntarily. She admits that this place was at a walking distance of two hours. She admits that her hands and mouth were not tied. She admits that she had changed her clothes in the house. She admits that she had made statement to the Doctor voluntarily. It is not her case that at the time when she was confined to this place, accused had ever threatened or assaulted her. She was under no fear at all. From her testimony as already discussed, it is quite apparent that she was in love with accused Madan Lal, aged 23 years and had voluntarily stayed with him as her parents had objected to her marriage with accused Madan Lal. 14. I find that there is contradiction in the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-2) and her father (PW-6) with regard to the house where she was kept in confinement. According to the prosecutrix, the house was a three storeyed building and she was confined on the top floor. Whereas, according to her father, the house was five storeyed and she was recovered from the second floor. Version of the prosecutrix that there were no doors and windows does not inspire confidence. It was an abandoned house. It is not the case of prosecution that all windows and doors were blocked or concealed by accused Madan Lal. Be that as it may, it be also observed that even uncle of the prosecutrix, that is, Sh. Krishan Lal (PW-5) admits that both the prosecutrix and the accused Madan Lal @ Sonu wanted to marry each other. There was no question of the prosecutrix being confined or detained, at a particular place by the accused. Further it needs to be examined as to whether, prosecutrix was subjected to rape or not. In the MLC (Ext. PW 3/B) the Doctor (PW-3) has observed that no marks of injury were found on the body of the prosecutrix. Her hymen was torn, there was no tenderness or redness in the vagina but two fingers could be inserted with difficulty. Doctor opined that prosecutrix was not virgin and possibility of recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. 15. IN Trimukh Maroti Kirkan versus State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 the apex Court has held that:- "... A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. Doctor opined that prosecutrix was not virgin and possibility of recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. 15. IN Trimukh Maroti Kirkan versus State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 the apex Court has held that:- "... A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him." 16. PROSECUTRIX of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. If for some reason Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. [State of Maharashtra versus Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 ] The Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Gurmit Singh and others, (1996) 2 SCC 384 has held that:- "......The Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? "21. Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault- it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case." ...... (Emphasis supplied) 17. DISCREPANCY has to be distinguished from contradiction. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case." ...... (Emphasis supplied) 17. DISCREPANCY has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. In order to ascertain as to whether discrepancy pointed out is minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness is making the statement. [State of H.P. versus Lekh Raj and another (2000) 1 SCC 247 ] 18. IN the aforesaid decision itself the Court reiterated its earlier view taken in State of Punjab versus Jagir Singh (1974) 3 SCC 277 wherein it was held that:- "A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give fight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures." (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan versus N. K. ACCUSED (2000) 5 SCC 30 has held that:- "......It is true that the golden thread which runs throughout the cobweb of criminal jurisprudence as administered in India is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not suffer. But at the same time no guilty should escape unpunished once the guilt has been proved to hilt. But at the same time no guilty should escape unpunished once the guilt has been proved to hilt. An unmerited acquittal does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing case for recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the Court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and giving benefit thereof where none exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for finding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on prowl for easy prey, more so when the victims of crime are helpless females. It is the spurt in the number of unmerited acquittals recorded by criminal Courts which gives rise to the demand for death sentence to the rapists. The Courts have to display a greater sense of responsibility and to be more sensitive while dealing with charges of sexual assault on women." (Emphasis supplied) 19. IN State of M.P. v. Dharkole alias Govind Singh and others, (2004) 13 SCC 308 the Apex Court has held that:- "9.... Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation." "10. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to each case? "The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. What degree of probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to each case? "The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other." "11. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and commonsense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case." [Emphasis supplied] 20. WHETHER there are contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the Court has to adopt reasonable and practicable approach and only material or serious contradictions/variations of great consequence to create a dent in the case of the prosecution are to be considered. The testimony is to be read in entirety to judge the truthfulness and veracity thereof. [Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 ] In the backdrop of the settled principles of law and the statement of the prosecutrix discussed herein earlier, the findings returned by the trial Court that prosecutrix was subjected to rape cannot be said to be legally tenable. Even at the cost of repetition, it be only observed that prosecutrix knew the accused from before. They were having some relationship for last one year, which was objected to by her parents. Accused was visiting the house of the prosecutrix. Even at the cost of repetition, it be only observed that prosecutrix knew the accused from before. They were having some relationship for last one year, which was objected to by her parents. Accused was visiting the house of the prosecutrix. Letters were exchanged. Telephone calls were made. When the telephone was got disconnected by the father of the prosecutrix, accused Madan Lal gave her a mobile phone. She was not opposed to marry accused Madan Lal. But it is only that her parents were objecting to the same. She dressed like a bride. Thus possibility of her having consented of having sexual intercourse with accused Madan Lal cannot be ruled out. After all, co-accused Manoj Kumar was her brother in relation. 21. IN my considered view prosecutrix did not submit but in fact consented and voluntarily went with the accused and stayed with him for more than ten days. Her relationship with the accused was not palatable to her parents who reported the matter to police. It is not a case where she was under any psychological pressure, inducement or allurement of any nature. 22. THE trial Court has observed that refusal on the part of the prosecutrix to get married to the accused, without the consent of her parents, only reflects the absence of her consent for any sexual intercourse. Lack of evidence of consent, in defence, has been held to be a factor against the accused. Testimony of the prosecutrix and the Doctor, as already discussed, clearly establishes that she was wearing as a bride. In fact, MLC (Ext. PW-3/B) records "wearing Sindoor". In this backdrop it cannot be said that the accused Madan Lal subjected the prosecutrix to an offence of rape. 23. HENCE, for all the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the judgment passed by the trial Court is based on sound principles of law, clear and cogent piece of evidence or that the testimony of the relevant prosecution witnesses is inspiring in confidence in any manner. 24. AS such, the present appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and the accused are acquitted of the charged offences. Accused Madan Lal who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Release warrants be prepared and issued accordingly. 24. AS such, the present appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and the accused are acquitted of the charged offences. Accused Madan Lal who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Release warrants be prepared and issued accordingly. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to take all necessary and consequential actions immediately. Bail bonds furnished by the accused Manoj Kumar are discharged. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the accused. Both the appeals stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.