JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 11.07.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.14 of 2004, titled as State of H.P. Versus Tulshi Ram, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 18.10.2003, prosecutrix was returning home at Belu Dhank from the fields. At about 3.00 PM, when she reached at Baga Nullah, accused caught her and laid her on the ground. Thereafter he untied her salwar, removed her underwear and after removing his clothes subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. Prosecutrix after returning home, narrated the incident to her mother Sharda Devi (PW2). She in turn, informed her husband Goverdhan Dass (not examined), apprised Ward Member Tara Dutt (PW11) about the incident. On 20.10.2003, Goverdhan reported the matter to the police, on the basis of which FIR No.140/03 dated 20.10.2003 (Ex.PW1/A) was registered at Police Station, Karsog, under the provisions of Sections 341 and 376 IPC. Prosecutrix was got medically examined by Dr. Satish (PW5) at Civil Hospital, Karsog, who issued MLC (Ex.PW5/A). Further medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Meena Sharma (PW4) and Dr. Renu Behl (PW10) at the Zonal Hospital, Mandi. MLC (Ex.PW4/A) is on record to this effect. Salwar (Ex.P1) and underwear (Ex.P2) of the prosecutrix, recovered by the police, along with vaginal smear were sent for chemical analysis. On 17.11.2003, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, recorded statement (Ex. PA) of the prosecutrix. Investigation was completed by S.I. Mangat Ram (PW12), who took into possession string of the salwar (Ex.P4), allegedly broken by the accused at the time of committing crime; birth certificate (Ex.PW3/A) indicating the age of the prosecutrix to be minor and report of the chemical examiner (Ex.PX). With the completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. The accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 341 and 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led. 5. Appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal. 6. In the instant case, there is no eye witness. Prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of the prosecutrix. 7. It is settled principle of law that testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient enough to convict the accused if it inspires confidence. (See: Rajesh Patel Versus State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791 and State of Rajasthan Versus Babu Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206 ). 8. The Court is duty bound to appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case. It is also settled proposition of law that in case evidence read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, her version is liable to be rejected. The apex Court in Narender Kumar Versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171 , has held as under:- “20. It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 21. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. 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 finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony. (Vide: Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. & Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 175 ; and Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 . 22. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. (Vide: Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 1 SCC 220 . 23. In Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 14 SCC 534 , this Court while dealing with the issue held: “4….the only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed.” 24. In Rajoo & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133, this Court held: (SCC p. 141, para 10) “10….that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary.” The court however, further observed: “11…….It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication….. there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.” 25. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566 , this Court held has under: “9. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication….. there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.” 25. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566 , this Court held has under: “9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.” 26. Even in cases where there is some material to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no inference of the victim being a woman of “easy virtues” or a women of “loose moral character” can be drawn. Such a woman has a right to protect her dignity and cannot be subjected to rape only for that reason. She has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. Merely because a woman is of easy virtue, her evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone rather it is to be cautiously appreciated. (Vide: State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, (1991) 1 SCC 57 ; State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 384 ; and State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 594 . 27. In view of the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Evidence Act, 1872, unless the character of the prosecutrix itself is in issue, her character is not a relevant factor to be taken into consideration at all. 28. The courts while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which are not of a substantial character. 29. However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. 29. However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. (Vide: Tukaram & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, (2979) 2 SCC 143; and Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 . 30. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. There must be proper legal evidence and material on record to record the conviction of the accused. Conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. However, in case the court has reason not to accept the version of prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecutrix case becomes liable to be rejected. 31. The court must act with sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in the isolation. Even if the prosecutrix is of easy virtue/unchaste woman that itself cannot be a determinative factor and the court is required to adjudicate whether the accused committed rape on the victim on the occasion complained of.” 9. Before we deal with the same, we may only observe that there is a delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the report with the police. Alleged incident took place on 19.10.2003 at about 3.00 PM. Before we deal with the same, we may only observe that there is a delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the report with the police. Alleged incident took place on 19.10.2003 at about 3.00 PM. Prosecutrix admits that she reached home after 5.00 PM when she informed her mother Smt. Sharda Devi (PW2) about the incident. Now Smt. Sharda Devi (PW2) states that she informed her husband, who in turn, informed Tara Dutt about the same. Tara Dutt (PW11) admits that he had heard about the incident on 19.10.2003 at 6.20 PM itself. Significantly Police Station is not far off from the house of the prosecutrix or from the house of Ward Member. We find that matter was reported to the police only on 20.10.2003 and that too at 12.10 PM. The delay in lodging the FIR, in the given facts, is not fatal. But what we find, no plausible explanation is forthcoming in not promptly reporting the matter to the authorities. It is not that matter was kept secret to save family honour. After all Ward Member, a public representative, was made known of the incident in the evening of 19.10.2003 itself. He could have conveniently informed the police. It is also not that certain talks of compromise etc. were taking place between the families of the accused and the prosecutrix. 10. We reiterate that delay is not a factor which has weighed with us at all. However, we observe that, due deliberation in getting the matter reported to the police is not ruled out in the instant case and that perhaps is the reason for delay in reporting the matter to the police. In FIR (Ex.PW1/A), prosecutrix clearly states that accused tried to break open the string of her salwar but failed to do so. Thereafter he pulled her salwar and underwear and committed sexual intercourse. She cried for help but none came forward. Significantly statement (Ex.PW12/D) of the prosecutrix was recorded before the concerned Magistrate on 17.11.2003 in which she gives a totally different version. She states that accused broke the string of her salwar and thereafter “tried” to put his penis in her vagina. She successfully resisted such act. Also she threw stones at him. Not only that, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., by the police on 21.10.2003, she states that only part of string of her salwar had broken. 11. She states that accused broke the string of her salwar and thereafter “tried” to put his penis in her vagina. She successfully resisted such act. Also she threw stones at him. Not only that, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., by the police on 21.10.2003, she states that only part of string of her salwar had broken. 11. We find that prosecutrix has given different version on different occasions. In Court, she states that on 19.10.2003, she was returning home. At about 3.00 PM when she reached Baga Nullah, accused caught her hands and laid her on the ground. He tried to untie her salwar by pulling the string, as a result of which the string got broken. Significantly she does not state that her hands were tied. She states that accused removed her salwar and underwear and after opening his trouser and underwear “laid on her” for about half an hour. Thereafter he left the spot. She put on her clothes, she went to her parents’ house and narrated the incident to her mother. On 20.10.2003, she along with her father went to the Police Station and lodged the report. Police effected recovery in her presence. We find such version of hers not to be inspiring in confidence at all. In the FIR, she got recorded that she was subjected to sexual intercourse which in Court she falsifies by stating that accused laid on her for about half an hour. Significantly she knows the difference between “rape” and “laying”. Medical evidence with regard to rape also stands contradicted. According to Dr. Satish (PW5), prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. He gave his opinion on the basis of a torn hymen. Whereas, according to Dr. Meena Sharma (PW4) and Dr. Renu Behl (PW10), it is not so. Significantly Dr. Satish admits that no injury was found on the body of prosecutrix. The doctors admit that no blood stains and semen were found on the clothes or pubic hair of the prosecutrix. Medical evidence reveals that prosecutrix is well built. 12. In the light of this medical evidence, we may only observe that prosecutrix herself admits in Court “that I had made statement to the police that he tried to molest for half an hour”. Here she is not talking of rape. Significantly prosecutrix admits not to have resisted the acts of the accused. 12. In the light of this medical evidence, we may only observe that prosecutrix herself admits in Court “that I had made statement to the police that he tried to molest for half an hour”. Here she is not talking of rape. Significantly prosecutrix admits not to have resisted the acts of the accused. Though she states that she raised alarm for help, but we do not find this version of hers to be inspiring in confidence. Prosecutrix is physically well built. She could have resisted the acts of the accused, who himself was almost of similar age. Prosecutrix admits that the place where incident took place is a public path, used by general public. She admits that at the place where offence took place, there were stones and grass, but then noticeably she admits not to have sustained any injury on her body. Accused has suggested that she was having a love affair with the accused. She denies it, but we find such version not to be inspiring in confidence. This, we say so, for the reason that she was with the accused for more than half an hour. She was laid on the ground yet no injuries were found on her body. It was a public path commonly used by general public. 13. We also find version of Smt. Sharda Devi (PW2) not to be inspiring in confidence. She states that when prosecutrix returned home, her shirt and salwar were torn and she was having injuries on her body i.e. hand, back and leg from where blood was also oozing. Now this version stands totally belied not only by the prosecutrix, but also medical evidence on record. 14. Why is it that father of the prosecutrix has not been examined in Court, has not been explained. 15. Prosecutrix was born on 01.10.1986. This fact stands established through the testimony of Joginder Pal (PW3), who proved birth certificate (Ex.PW3/A). 16. In the instant case, we do not find case of the prosecution to have been probablized or version of prosecutrix to be inspiring in confidence. There are material improvements in her version. Initially she deposed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse which version she retracted from by stating that it was an attempt. Initially she deposed that string of her salwar was not broken. Accused had pulled down the salwar. There are material improvements in her version. Initially she deposed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse which version she retracted from by stating that it was an attempt. Initially she deposed that string of her salwar was not broken. Accused had pulled down the salwar. Later on she improved her version by deposing that string was broken. She conveniently forgets that at the time when she returned home she was wearing her salwar which ought to have been tied with the string. This falsifies the version of the investigating agency that string was recovered from the spot of crime and not from possession of the prosecutrix. She further improved her version by stating that she hit the accused with stones, as a result of which he sustained injuries, which version stands belied by medical evidence on record. 17. The improbabilities, contradictions, improvements and discrepancies in the prosecution case render the testimony of the witnesses to be absolutely shaky and unreliable. 18. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 19. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredient so as to constitute the charged offences. 20. The accused person has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the lower appellate Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Courts below be immediately sent back.