JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. 1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 31.3.2008 of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2004 (45 of 2005), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Bholu alias Vijay Kumar, challenging the acquittal of respondent Bholu alias Vijay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stands charged for having committed offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix (PW-1), who was working as a labourer in the house of Gopal Dass in village Gulana, on 20.5.2004 at about 5.30 p.m., left for jungle. At about 6.30 P.M. when she reached Dhanu Nallah, accused stopped her and by dragging, took her inside a cave, where he forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse. She did resist but in vain. Thereafter, accused threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, lest she would be killed. She walked back home and went off to sleep. On 22.5.2004, she lodged report (Ex. PW-12/A) with the police at Police Station, Lad Bharol, on the basis of which FIR No. 102 of 2004, dated 22.5.2004 (Ex. PW-13/B), under the provisions of Sections 341, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against the accused. ASI Ghanshyam (PW-14) visited the spot and in the presence of independent witnesses Gopal Dass (PW-2) and Hans Raj (PW-11) carried out necessary investigation. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Maul Shree Lata (PW- 10), who issued MLC (Ex. PW-10/A). Police took into possession torn clothes of the prosecutrix. Her vaginal swab sent for chemical analysis to FSL Junga and report (Ex. PW-4/D) was taken on record. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. PW-4/D) was taken on record. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took up a defence of innocence and false implication at the instance of Tara Chand and his family. 5. Finding the version of the prosecutrix and the version of other prosecution witnesses not to be inspiring in confidence, rendering the prosecution story to be doubtful, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, ably assisted by Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashist, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is reasoned and is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. Assailing the judgment Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, has invited our attention to the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother-in-law Premi Devi (PW-4) and independent witness Hans Raj (PW-11). 8. From the conjoint reading of testimonies of these witnesses, it can be said with certainty that prosecution has not been able to establish its case at all, much less beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The questions arising for consideration before us are: Whether the prosecution story, as alleged, inspires confidence of the Court on the evidence adduced? Whether the prosecutrix, is a witness worthy of reliance? 9. The questions arising for consideration before us are: Whether the prosecution story, as alleged, inspires confidence of the Court on the evidence adduced? Whether the prosecutrix, is a witness worthy of reliance? Whether the testimony of a prosecutrix who has been a victim of rape stands in need of corroboration and, if so, whether such corroboration is available in the facts of the present case? Whether she was a consenting party to the crime? Whether there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR? 10. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a 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 without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the Court of facts may find 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 do. 11. According to the version of prosecutrix, accused carried her inside the cave where he forcibly committed rape. She resisted without success. After ravishing her, accused threatened her not to disclose the incident, lest she be killed. Thereafter, she left the place. Hans Raj (Pw-11) met her on the way. She reached home at about 7.30 P.M. and slept. On 21.5.2004, she disclosed the incident to her mother-in-law. On 22.5.2004, she lodged the report at Police Station, Lad Bharol, where she went with her father and mother-in-law. 12. Significantly, PW-11 has not supported the prosecution at all. He was extensively cross-examined and despite the same, nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony. He categorically denies having seen the accused on the spot of crime. 13. Nonetheless, careful scrutiny of deposition of all the witnesses would establish one fact. Prosecutrix is well built. She is a healthy leady having height of 5.5 feet. He was extensively cross-examined and despite the same, nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony. He categorically denies having seen the accused on the spot of crime. 13. Nonetheless, careful scrutiny of deposition of all the witnesses would establish one fact. Prosecutrix is well built. She is a healthy leady having height of 5.5 feet. The cave where the alleged offence took place has an entrance of about 2 – 2½ feet and is at a height of 5 feet from the ground, without any steps leading to the same. Now, it is humanly not possible to physically lift another person and take her inside a cave. 14. Prosecutrix contradicts herself by stating that the length and width of the cave is 8 feet or 5 feet. But, what is important is her admission that accused lifted her for a distance of 20 feet, which is an improvement and appears to be impossible. It is not her version that accused had threatened her prior to the assault. We find that on material points, she has contradicted her previous statement so recorded by the police. Also, there are improvements in her version. In Court, she states that accused threatened to kill her and as such she did not disclose the incident to anyone, which fact she did not get recorded initially. Also, her version that she sustained injuries is not corroborated by any medical evidence. Her version that accused lifted her for a distance of 20 feet is also an improvement from her previous version. It is not her case that accused ravished her in an open area. She is categorical about the place being the cave. Now, if entrance of the case is just 2½ then how is it possible for anyone to enter the cave, carrying another person, particularly when it is located at a height of 5 feet from the surface level and has no approach or steps. It is physically impossible for any person to enter the cave and forcibly commit rape, as according to the prosecutrix length and width of the cave is not more than 8 feet. 15. We further find witnesses Gopal Dass (PW-2) and Baldev Singh (PW-5) to have rendered the prosecution version to be highly improbable and shaky. Both the witnesses admit that without help of another person, one cannot enter the cave. 15. We further find witnesses Gopal Dass (PW-2) and Baldev Singh (PW-5) to have rendered the prosecution version to be highly improbable and shaky. Both the witnesses admit that without help of another person, one cannot enter the cave. In fact PW-5, despite his attempt, could not enter the cave and took the photographs only from outside. Also, according to PW-2 no one can be taken inside the cave forcibly. 16. Her testimony is absolutely uninspiring in confidence. Her explanation that out of fear she did not disclose the incident for more than 48 hours is absolutely uninspiring in confidence. She had met PW-11 and also her mother-in-law the very same day, yet what prevented her from disclosing the incident is not clear. 17. Her version that while resisting the attack, her bangles had broken, which caused injury on her wrist, is neither corroborated by medical evidence nor by recovery of the same. 18. Also, Gopal Dass (PW-2) admits that if a person were to shout from the place of occurrence of crime, cries could be heard in village Chullah. Version of prosecutrix that she shouted for 2/3 minutes is uninspiring in confidence, more so in view of testimony of PW-11, who did not hear any cries as is so narrated by the prosecutrix. In fact, according to this witness, he found the prosecutrix in suspicious circumstances around the Nallah and told her that he would disclose this fact to her family members. The witness undisputedly had good relations with the prosecutrix. As such, he has no reason to depose against her. 19. Version of mother-in-law (PW-4) of the prosecutrix, in no manner, advances the prosecution case. According to this witness, prosecutrix disclosed the incident the following day. It has come on record that village Chullah is a big village. Houses of Amar Singh, Nathu, Hadu and Kishori Lal are adjoining her house. She did not disclose the incident to anyone. The witness admits that there is a telephone in the village. Then why is it that police was not informed telephonically. It is not that she was trying to save honour of the family. We find that even this witness has made several improvements in Court, rendering her version to be doubtful. 20. The witness admits that there is a telephone in the village. Then why is it that police was not informed telephonically. It is not that she was trying to save honour of the family. We find that even this witness has made several improvements in Court, rendering her version to be doubtful. 20. Significantly, father of the prosecutrix was not examined in Court and version of mother-in-law that she accompanied the prosecutrix for lodging the complaint with the police is not borne out from the record. 21. Dr. Inder Mohan Bisht (PW-7), who medically examined the prosecutrix, admits that no injury marks were found on any part of her body. Also, he states that clothes of the victim were not produced by the police. Prosecutrix was also medically examined by Dr. Maul Shree Lata (PW- 10), who also did not find any mark of injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix. According to the doctor (PW-10), she could not ascertain when lastly coitus had taken place. 22. The entire evidence ocular and documentary having been brought on record by the prosecution brings following salient features on record:- (a) Testimony of prosecutrix is discrepant in nature and is not worthy of credence. (b) Version of prosecutrix does not find necessary corroboration from medical evidence. (c) There is inordinate unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR. 23. Having regard to the discrepant nature of testimony of the prosecutrix, coupled with above noted peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it can safely be said that prosecution has not been able to prove on record beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the accused. 24. It is fairly settled that sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to base conviction but it has to be borne in mind that her testimony must be confidence inspiring in nature and the same must bear ring of truth around it. In the present case, statement on oath of prosecutrix has been perused with care. Her statement is discrepant in nature and her version on oath also goes contrary to the contents of FIR on material particulars of the case. Furthermore, medico legal examination certificate also does not support her cause about the presence of injuries on her person. Material pieces of evidence in the shape of broken bangles had not been handed over to the police by the prosecutrix. Furthermore, medico legal examination certificate also does not support her cause about the presence of injuries on her person. Material pieces of evidence in the shape of broken bangles had not been handed over to the police by the prosecutrix. Moreover, there is inordinate delay in lodging FIR and prosecutrix has failed to give satisfactory explanation for not reporting the matter to the police with due promptitude. The above noted facts and circumstances go to show that prosecution story is not worthy of acceptance qua the involvement of the accused in this case. 25. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused forcibly committed rape on the prosecutrix, caused simple hurt to her and also criminally intimidated her. 26. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 27. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.