JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by the convict Ramesh Sarkar from jail assailing the judgment and order dated 21.2.2013 rendered by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Sessions Trial No.68 of 2011. The said trial pertains to police station Rudrapur, wherein the appellant Ramesh Sarkar was found guilty for the offences of section 376/511 IPC wherefor he has been sentenced for five years’ rigorous imprisonment in addition to fine of Rs.2,000/-. 2. It appears that the appellant was arrested on the next day of incident on 9.12.2010 and ever-since his arrest, he is in detention. 3. Accused/appellant Ramesh Sarkar and father of the prosecutrix reside in close vicinity. Their houses are diagonally opposite, as it appears from the spot map Ex.Ka.4. 4. The first information report was lodged by PW1 Anand Ghatak, father of prosecutrix, on 8.12.2010 at 7:35 PM, narrating the incident occurred at 1 PM of the same day. It has been stated that when his daughter Ms. Usha, aged about five years, was playing in the public passage connecting the residences of a number of persons, appellant caught hold of her and strived to untie her undergarments. Victim made a noise on which the neighbours assembled. Then the appellant took to his heels. Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offences u/s 376/511 IPC. The charge was, accordingly, levelled against him by the Additional Sessions Judge. 5. Prosecution evidence is based mainly on the testimony of prosecutrix Ms. Usha. She was examined in the court in presence of her mother on 23.1.2013. Learned Trial Judge, in order to assess her capability to understand the nature of questions, prima facie, satisfied itself that she was capable to answer the questions. Having gone through her testimony, it appears that in her deposition, she has not supported the averments, as have been made in the report lodged by her father. In the F.I.R., as has been stated above, the averment has been made that she was playing in a public thoroughfare and the appellant tried to rape her after putting off her undergarments, while in her chief-examination itself, she has narrated her presence in the house of her Mausi (sister’s mother). It has further been stated by her that Ramesh (appellant) after holding her hand, took her to his house where none other was present. It has further been stated by her that Ramesh (appellant) after holding her hand, took her to his house where none other was present. In his (Ramesh’s) house, he removed her underwear. She further deposes that at the time of putting off her underwear she kept mum but soon after the above statement, she has further deposed that the blow of a baton was given on her foot by accused when she was not putting off her underwear. She immediately escaped from the spot. The statement of prosecutrix, by itself, is self-contradictory and does not inspire confidence at all. It reflects that she was not abiding uniformity in her own statement. So looking to the said statement of prosecutrix, it is difficult to assess her capability to understand the nature of questions and to answer them in a proper manner. This Court is mindful that her statement was recorded in presence of her mother, so to an extent, the possibility cannot be ruled out that her deposition was under the influence of her mother. 6. There is no ground to believe the story of prosecution because there is no corroborative evidence in support of this occurrence; evaluating the nature of contradictions in the testimony of prosecutrix itself, the corroboration of such an evidence was indispensable. It is well-settled that the testimony of a child witness can be relied upon but it can be done only when the same inspires implicit confidence. If there is a little doubt, then the established principle to accept the testimony of child witness is to look for some corroboration. Moreover, in the evidence, it has been averred that the neighbours assembled but none of them has come forward to corroborate the story, as has been stated in the FIR. Even the statement of PW5 Smt. Sangeeta is not supportive to the version, either of the F.I.R. or of the prosecutrix, in view of her deposition that on hearing the voice of Km. Usha, she came out and found the victim weeping in front of door of accused. So, the prosecution story that the victim was taken away by the accused, either from the thoroughfare or from the residence of PW5, becomes falsified. 7. Usha, she came out and found the victim weeping in front of door of accused. So, the prosecution story that the victim was taken away by the accused, either from the thoroughfare or from the residence of PW5, becomes falsified. 7. Even if the fact of putting off her underwear by the appellant is accepted, considering some truthfulness in the same, then also, no offence u/s 376/511 IPC is made out for the reason that to make out such offence, the intercourse, as has been adumberated under section 375 IPC (as it stood before the amendment w.e.f. 3.12.2013) was a sine qua non. There was no penetration much less any complete sexual intercourse done by the accused with the prosecutrix. So, this Court fails to understand as to on what basis, the court below has arrived at such a conclusion of finding the appellant guilty for the said offence. 8. Furthermore, the offence u/s 354 IPC is also not made out, beyond any doubt, on the strength of the evidence which is available on record. There are several glaring contradictions, inconsistencies and incongruities in the version of witnesses and prosecutrix to that of the averments made in the body of FIR by the complainant. 9. For the reasons, as have been stated above, this jail appeal is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be set at large forthwith from the prison, if not required in connection with any other case. 10. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be transmitted to the court concerned for compliance.