JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 30.3.2010 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 7-N/7 of 2008 whereby the appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for brevity sake), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 452, 342, 376 (2) (g) and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. Accused were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months under section 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month, under section 342 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months under section 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 29.2.2008, at about 10.30 P.M., accused came on the front door of the room of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix asked them as to why they were standing there. Accused told her that they wanted to have sex with her. Accused entered the room and when the prosecutrix threatened to raise alarm, one of the accused gagged her mouth and the other pressed her throat. Accused bolted the door from inside and threatened the prosecutrix that in case she raised alarm, she would be killed. Accused told her that they wanted to have sex with her. Accused entered the room and when the prosecutrix threatened to raise alarm, one of the accused gagged her mouth and the other pressed her throat. Accused bolted the door from inside and threatened the prosecutrix that in case she raised alarm, she would be killed. One of the accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix on the carpet and the other accused took the prosecutrix to her bedroom and committed rape upon her forcibly. In an attempt to save herself, prosecutrix sustained bruise on her cheek. She came out and raised alarm. Accused fled away from the spot. She went to the house of her landlord PW-1 Ved Parkash. He came with her at the place of occurrence. PW-2 Rajender Kumar disclosed the names of the accused as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. The prosecutrix stayed in the house of PW-1 Ved Parkash. Next morning, she reported the matter to the police vide complaint Ex. PW-3/A. On the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW-13/A was registered at Police Station, Nahan. Accused were identified. The matter was investigated by PW-16 Inspector Vijay Sharma. During investigation, he prepared spot map and took into possession bed sheet Ex. P-1 and carpet Ex. P-2 alongwith clothes of prosecutrix i.e. Salwar, Ex. P-3, Underwear Ex. P-4 and Shirt Ex. P-5 vide memos Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B. Prosecutrix was medically examined at R.H. Nahan. Accused were also medically examined. PW-5 Dr. Shail Sehgal opined that the prosecutrix had sexual intercourse in the past and injury sustained by her on her cheek was possible in sexual assault. She issued MLC Ex. PW-5/B. The report of Scientific Officer Ex. PW-6/A was received. Thereafter, after completion of codal formalities, challan was put up in the Court. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statements of accused, under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, were also recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution and stated that they have been falsely implicated. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed herein above. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. V.S. Attri, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed herein above. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. V.S. Attri, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Ved Parkash has deposed that he has rented out some rooms of his building to the tenants. In the year 2008, prosecutrix was his tenant. She was occupying two rooms. Other rooms were rented out to some boy, who was working in a factory. His name was Rajinder. On 29.2.2008, at 2.00 A.M. prosecutrix came to his room weeping and told that she was caught hold by some boys. The boys committed rape on her. He went to the spot where none was present. Other tenants had fled away. Prosecutrix revealed the names of accused, who committed rape on her as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. Prosecutrix told him that she was apprehending threat to her life from the accused and he should not leave her room. Rajinder Kumar did not disclose anything on the spot. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted that prosecutrix was crying when she came to his house. Her house was also in the same building. He has also admitted that he alongwith two other villagers went to the spot. He has denied the suggestion that Rajinder Kumar was also present on the spot at that time. He has also denied the suggestion that Rajinder Kumar disclosed the names of accused as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. Volunteered that Rajinder Kumar told the names of accused on the next day to the police. He did not recognize the clothes which were seized by the police. His statement was recorded by the police at Police Post, Kala Amb. He has denied the suggestion that he gave statement to the police that Rajinder Kumar has disclosed the names of accused as Ram Singh and Tilak Raj. He was confronted with statement mark-A of portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ where in it is so recorded. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has deposed that Rajinder had only one room on rent. He was confronted with statement mark-A of portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ where in it is so recorded. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has deposed that Rajinder had only one room on rent. He has also admitted that there was a door for going to the room in which prosecutrix was residing from the room of Rajinder. Volunteered that the same was locked. He had called 2-3 persons from his neighbourhood. He was apprehensive that boys six in number may not harm him. He had cell phone with him. He tried to contact the police on phone, but could not succeed and the prosecutrix in the morning went to Police Station. He went to the Police Post, Kala Amb at about 10.00 A.M. He did not know where the statement of prosecutrix was recorded. He has not seen the prosecutrix going to the Police Post. 8. PW-2 Rajinder Kumar has testified that he was working in a factory at Kala Amb. He was residing at Trilokpur in a room hired from Ved Parkash. Man Mohan and Gopal were also residing with him in the same room. Prosecutrix was also residing in a room adjoining to his room. He knew the accused as they were working with him. On 29.2.2008, he alongwith the accused had come to his room. They took dinner together and thereafter both the accused left the room. On the same day, in the evening, they had taken liquor at Khari and thereafter they had come to his room. Thereafter, both the accused after taking dinner went to their room. Accused were also residing in the village at a distance of 2 minutes walk. He was also declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had threatened him that in case he came out, they would kill him. He has admitted that the prosecutrix came out from her room who was crying and was saying “bachao bachao”. Prosecutrix went to the house of Ved Parkash and Ved Parkash came with her to her room. He alongwith Man Mohan and Gopal had also come out from his room. He has denied the suggestion that prosecutrix disclosed that accused have committed rape upon her. He has also denied the suggestion that he disclosed the names of accused to Ved Parkash and other persons who had assembled there. He alongwith Man Mohan and Gopal had also come out from his room. He has denied the suggestion that prosecutrix disclosed that accused have committed rape upon her. He has also denied the suggestion that he disclosed the names of accused to Ved Parkash and other persons who had assembled there. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has admitted that both the accused came with him to his room from the factory. Accused left his room at about 10 or 10.15 P.M. He heard the cries of prosecutrix after one hour. Thereafter, prosecutrix came to his room. She disclosed nothing to him and thereafter left to the room of Ved Parkash. A door from his room goes to the room of prosecutrix. 9. PW-3 Vidya Devi has testified that she was residing as a tenant in the house of Ved Parkash during the year 2008. She was having two rooms under her tenancy. Adjoining room was occupied by Rajinder Kumar. On 29.2.2008, at about 10.30 P.M., she was going to sleep after taking her meal. Two boys came in front of door of her house. She asked them as to why they were standing there. They appeared to be drunk. They both asked her name. She replied that they have no concern with her name and asked them to leave. The boys told that they wanted to have sex with her. They entered her room and when she threatened to raise alarm, one of them gagged her mouth and another pressed her throat. Accused bolted the door from inside and threatened her that in case she raised alarm they would kill her with knife. She called Tara. She cried but the accused threatened her to say nothing has happened. One of them first committed rape upon her on the carpet. Second boy took her to her bed room and committed rape upon her forcibly. She tried to save herself from the accused due to which bruises appeared on her cheek. After opening the door, she came out and raised alarm and went to the house of her landlord. The boys fled away from the spot. Ved Parkash and Rajinder also came there. Rajinder told the names of the boys as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. She did not report the matter on the same night. Police post was at a distance of 6 kms from her house. The boys fled away from the spot. Ved Parkash and Rajinder also came there. Rajinder told the names of the boys as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. She did not report the matter on the same night. Police post was at a distance of 6 kms from her house. In the morning, when she was going to police post Kala Amb, for lodging the report, on the way near Sabu Iron Steel Factory, police met her. She handed over complaint Ex. PW-3/A to the police. Police visited the spot and took into possession Dari and bed sheet vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. Her clothes were also taken into possession. She was medically examined. In her cross-examination she has deposed that she did not know the names of the accused prior to the date of occurrence. Accused remained in her room for about 5-7 minutes and prior to that they remained at the door for about 10 minutes. Accused had told her that they would commit sex with her while standing on the door of her room. Accused had gagged her mouth on the door. Accused threatened her immediately after bolting the door that there would be bloodshed in case she raised alarm. She tried her level best to save herself from the accused. After coming out of her room, she immediately went to the house of Ved Parkash. She has not seen Rajinder or any other person before going to the house of Ved Parkash. She stayed there during the whole night and did not see Rajinder Kumar thereafter. No other person came there from the locality as the other houses were at a distance from the house of Ved Parkash. 10. PW-4 Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal has examined Tilak Raj and Ram Singh and issued MLCs Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C. 11. PW-5 Dr. Shail Sehgal has medically examined the prosecutrix. She has issued MLC Ex.PW-5/B. According to her, as per the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Juna, no blood and semen were found on vaginal slides and pubic hair of Vidya Devi. According to her opinion, prosecutrix had sexual act in the past. 12. PW-6 Dr. Gian Thakur has issued report Ex.PW-6/A. Statements of PW-7 H.C. Param Jeet Singh, PW-8 Constable Rakesh Kumar, PW-9 H.C. Kuldeep Singh and PW-10 Constable Dhyaram Dutt are formal in nature. 13. According to her opinion, prosecutrix had sexual act in the past. 12. PW-6 Dr. Gian Thakur has issued report Ex.PW-6/A. Statements of PW-7 H.C. Param Jeet Singh, PW-8 Constable Rakesh Kumar, PW-9 H.C. Kuldeep Singh and PW-10 Constable Dhyaram Dutt are formal in nature. 13. PW-11 Gopal Dutt has deposed that he was residing in village Johro in a rented room. Nothing has happened in his presence. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not know Rajinder Kumar. He did not know as to whether Rajinder Kumar and Man Mohan Singh were living in a rented room at Trilokpur. He took the dinner with Man Mohan Singh at Trilokpur. He has denied that at about 11.00 P.M. he heard the cries of a lady and they both got up and came out of the room. He has denied that Vidya Devi raised cries saying “bachao bachao”. He did not know as to whether Rajinder Kumar and Ved Parkash also reached on the spot. He did not know that the boys were identified by Rajinder Kumar and disclosed their name as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. Volunteered that in the morning, Man Mohan Singh told him that a lady has been raped. Man Mohan Singh met him in the factory. 14. PW Tara Devi was given up being won over. 15. PW-12 SI Balak Ram has deposed that prosecutrix moved an application Ex.PW-3/A before him near Sabu Saria (Iron) Factory at Kala Amb. He was on patrolling duty. He made endorsement Ex.PW-12/A on application Ex.PW-3/A and sent the same through Constable Sewa Singh to Police Station, Nahan for registration of case. Constable Sewa Singh after getting the FIR registered came back to Trilokpur. He informed the S.H.O., Police Station, Nahan and A.S.P. Sirmaur. They both also reached on the spot. Both the accused were identified by the prosecutrix and they were taken into custody. 16. PW-13 SI Subhash Chand Katoch has deposed that rukka Ex.PW-3/A was received in Police Station, Nahan through Constable Sewa Singh, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-13/A was registered in the Police Station. 17. Statements of PW-14 Jaswant Singh and PW-15 Parveen Rana are formal in nature. 19. PW-16 Vijay Sharma is the Investigating Officer in this case. He has deposed that ASI Balak Ram, Incharge, Police Post, Kala Amb informed him about the occurrence. 17. Statements of PW-14 Jaswant Singh and PW-15 Parveen Rana are formal in nature. 19. PW-16 Vijay Sharma is the Investigating Officer in this case. He has deposed that ASI Balak Ram, Incharge, Police Post, Kala Amb informed him about the occurrence. He rushed to the spot with his staff. He took into possession bed sheet Ex.P-1 and Dari Ex.P-2 vide memo Ex.PW-1/A. He also took into possession Salwar Ex.P-3, underwear Ex.P-4, shirt Ex.P-5 vide memo Ex.PW-1/B and the same were sealed in a cloth packet with seal impression ‘G’. The sample seal was taken on a piece of cloth vide Ex.PW-16/B. Both the accused were arrested and sent for medical examination to R.H. Nahan. Prosecutrix was also medically examined. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. He has denied the suggestion that there was a door between the rooms of prosecutrix and Rajinder Kumar. He has denied the suggestion that he has not shown the door in the site plan Ex.PW-16/A knowingly in order to deprive the accused of the benefit. 20. According to Rukka Ex.PW-13/A, PW-3 Vidya Devi, after taking meal was going to sleep at about 10.30 P.M. Two boys stood in front of door of her house. She inquired from them why they were standing there. Perhaps they had consumed liquor. They asked her name. She told them what they have to do with her name and asked them to leave the place. She threatened to call the landlord. They insisted that they wanted to have sex with her and forcibly entered the room. When she called her landlord’s daughter, her mouth was gagged by one of the boys and the other tried to strangulate her. They bolted the door. When Tara came on the spot and inquired the matter, the boys threatened to kill her. They told her that they may use knife. She was scared and told Tara that there was nothing unusual. Thereafter, Rajinder who was sitting in the adjoining room inquired from the boys what were they doing and to come out, they also threatened him. Short structured boy brought Dari from inside the room and committed rape upon her and thereafter the second boy dragged her to her bed room and committed rape upon her. She came out of the room and raised alarm. Rajinder and the boy sitting with him and the landlord assembled on the spot. Short structured boy brought Dari from inside the room and committed rape upon her and thereafter the second boy dragged her to her bed room and committed rape upon her. She came out of the room and raised alarm. Rajinder and the boy sitting with him and the landlord assembled on the spot. Rajinder told her the names of boys Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. She stayed in the house of landlord due to fear. However, there is variance what has been stated in Ex.PW-3/A and when she appeared as witness in the Court. She has not stated in her statement that she told the boys to leave the place, failing which she would call the police. In her statement, she has stated that she had called Tara but the accused had threatened her. In the Rukka, she has testified that in fact Tara had come to the room and had inquired what was the matter, but she told her that there was nothing unusual. This is material omission made by PW-3 Vidya Devi in her statement. It is stated in the rukka that Rajinder has also inquired from the boys that what were they doing and he asked them to come out. PW-3 Vidya Devi has not stated so in her statement. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that the boys remained outside the door of her house for about ten minutes and the boys remained in the room for about 5-7 minutes. According to her statement made in the court while appearing as PW-3, boys kept standing outside the door of the room for about ten minutes, but she has not stated so in rukka Ex.PW-3/A. In rukka, it is stated that when she raised alarm, Rajinder Kumar and the boy sitting with him and the landlord came on the spot and Rajinder Singh disclosed the names of the boys as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. In her cross-examination, she has testified that after coming out from her room, she immediately went to the house of Ved Parkash. She has neither seen Rajinder nor any other person before going to the house of Ved Parkash. This is material contradiction in her statement. 21. PW-1 Ved Parkash has deposed that on 29.2.2008 at 2.00 A.M. prosecutrix had come to his room weeping. She has neither seen Rajinder nor any other person before going to the house of Ved Parkash. This is material contradiction in her statement. 21. PW-1 Ved Parkash has deposed that on 29.2.2008 at 2.00 A.M. prosecutrix had come to his room weeping. According to PW-3 Vidya Devi, the boys had come to her room at about 10.00 P.M. and they remained outside the door of the room for about 10 minutes and in the room about 5-7 minutes. She should have immediately gone to the house of Ved Parkash instead of going at 2.00 A.M. PW-1 Ved Parkash was declared hostile. He has denied the suggestion that Rajinder Kumar was also present on the spot at that time. He has also denied the suggestion that Rajinder Kumar disclosed the names of boys as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. He has not recognized the clothes, which were seized by the police. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was a door for going to the room in which prosecutrix was residing from the room though he has stated that it was locked. He has called 2-3 persons from his neighbourhood. PW-2 Rajinder Kumar has deposed that on 29.2.2008, he alongwith both the accused had come to room. He has taken dinner. Thereafter, both the accused after taking dinner went to their room. He did not know in whose room both the accused went and what they did nor he heard any cries/noise. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied the suggestion that he asked the boys to leave the room, though PW-3 Vidya Devi has stated that Rajinder asked the boys to leave the room. He has also denied the suggestion that accused had threatened him that in case he came out, they would kill him. He has also denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix told him that the boys raped her. He has denied the suggestion that he disclosed the names of the accused to Ved Parkash. In his cross-examination conducted by the defence counsel he has deposed that the accused had left his room at 10 or 10.15 P.M. He heard the cries of the prosecutrix after one hour. Thereafter she came to his room. He inquired from her as to what has happened. She disclosed nothing to him. Thereafter he left the room. In his cross-examination conducted by the defence counsel he has deposed that the accused had left his room at 10 or 10.15 P.M. He heard the cries of the prosecutrix after one hour. Thereafter she came to his room. He inquired from her as to what has happened. She disclosed nothing to him. Thereafter he left the room. It is also stated that door from his room goes to the room of prosecutrix. The police has also prepared the spot map. It is evident from the statement of PW-1 Ved Parkash and PW-3 Vidya Devi that the room of the prosecutrix was adjoining to the room of Rajinder Kumar. If she had raised alarm, it would have definitely drawn the attention of Rajinder Kumar, who was residing in the adjoining room. Thus, version of PW-3 Vidya Devi that she was threatened by the accused cannot be believed. She could tell the same to Rajinder Kumar when he inquired from the boys, as per her version. Thus, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that accused had forcibly entered the room of prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. She has not gone to the Police Station, but handed over the complaint Ex.PW-3/A to the police near Sabu Iron Steel Factory. PW-11 Gopal Dutt has not supported the case of prosecution. He was declared hostile. He has denied the suggestion that Vidya Devi raised cries “bachao bachao”. He did not know that the boys were identified by Rajinder Kumar and he told their names as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. He has stated that in the morning, Man Mohan Singh told him that a lady has been raped. According to PW-1 Ved Prakash, prosecutrix went to the Police Station in the morning. However, PW-12 Balak Ram has deposed that he was on patrolling duty alongwith staff. The prosecutrix moved an application Ex.PW-3/A on 1.3.2008 to him near Sabu Iron Steel Factory, Kala Amb. 22. PW-5 Dr. Shail Sehgal has earlier given provisional opinion that prosecutrix had sexual act in the past. However, PW-12 Balak Ram has deposed that he was on patrolling duty alongwith staff. The prosecutrix moved an application Ex.PW-3/A on 1.3.2008 to him near Sabu Iron Steel Factory, Kala Amb. 22. PW-5 Dr. Shail Sehgal has earlier given provisional opinion that prosecutrix had sexual act in the past. She has repeated the same opinion after receiving the report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga on 21.4.2008 as per MLC Ex.PW-5/B. According to Ex.PW-6/A, the blood and semen were not found on Ex.1-a and 1-b, Salwar and shirt of prosecutrix, Ex.2-a carpet, Ex.2-b bed sheet, Ex.-3 vaginal slides and Ex.4 pubic hair of prosecutrix, Ex.5 pubic hair of Tilak Raj, Ex.-7 pubic hair of Ram Singh and Ex.8 underwear of Ram Singh. Human semen was detected on Ex.1-c underwear of Vidya Devi and Ex.-6 underwear of Tilak Raj but blood was not found on these exhibits. 23. What emerges from the discussion of the evidence made hereinabove is that incident is stated to happened on 29.2.2008 at 10.30 P.M. From the variance in the contents of Ex.PW-3/A and the statement of PW-3 Vidya Devi coupled with statements of PW-1 Ved Parkash and PW-2 Rajinder Singh, it cannot be held that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual act. She had an opportunity to raise alarm when the boys were standing in front of the door of her house for 10 minutes and insisted to have sex with her. She had again an opportunity to raise alarm when Tara Devi came to her, but she did not raise alarm. She knew that PW-2 Rajinder Kumar was residing in the adjoining room. He was in the room. The door of one of the rooms of prosecutrix goes to the room of Rajinder Kumar. PW-1 Ved Parkash though has stated that it was locked. However, it is apparent that what was happening in the room was being heard by Rajinder Kumar. It is for this reason that Rajinder Kumar told the boys to come out. According to rukka, when she raised alarm PW-1 Ved Parkash and PW-2 Rajinder Kumar had come on the spot. However, in her statement, she has stated that she came out and went to the house of Ved Paraksh and stayed there over night with him. PW-11 Gopal Dutt has not supported the prosecution case at all. According to rukka, when she raised alarm PW-1 Ved Parkash and PW-2 Rajinder Kumar had come on the spot. However, in her statement, she has stated that she came out and went to the house of Ved Paraksh and stayed there over night with him. PW-11 Gopal Dutt has not supported the prosecution case at all. In fact, PW-1 Ved Parkash and PW-2 Rajinder Kumar have been declared hostile. The only conclusion, which can be drawn from the evidence of the prosecution, is that the sexual act was consensual. The prosecutrix was 32 years of age having two children. There are material contradictions, inconsistencies and embellishments in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 24. In order to prove charge under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that : a) the wronged person had a right to proceed on a particular way over land or water; b) the accused obstructed or prevented the wronged person from proceeding along the particular way; c) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily; d) lastly, the obstructer must not have reason to believe in good faith that he had a lawful right to obstruct. 25. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. It is duly proved from the statement of PW-2 Rajinder Kumar that prosecutrix was not wrongfully confined. She had an opportunity to raise alarm when the landlord’s daughter Tara Devi had come and more particularly when PW-2 Rajinder Kumar was residing in the adjoining room. 26. In order to prove charge under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused committed house trespass as defined in section 442 of the Indian Penal Code and that the house trespass was committed after the accused made preparation for causing hurt to, or for assaulting, or for wrongfully restraining some person, or for putting some person in fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were standing, according to the statement of PW-3 Vidya Devi, in front of door of her house for ten minutes. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused used some force to enter the house. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were standing, according to the statement of PW-3 Vidya Devi, in front of door of her house for ten minutes. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused used some force to enter the house. Statement of PW-3 Vidya Devi that accused had gagged her mouth and threatened to use knife is not believable in view of the discussion of evidence by us. 27. Similarly, prosecution has failed to prove charge under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the statements of PW-1 Ved Parkash, PW-2 Rajinder Kumar, PW-3 Vidya Devi and PW-11 Gopal Dutt. Essential ingredients to prove the charge under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code are : a) that the accused threatened the victim; b) that this threatening was with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the victim is interested; c) that this threatening was intended to cause alarm to the victim or to cause the victim to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which the victim is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; d) that the victim has in fact been alarmed by the threat; the threat to injury may be in relation to reputation of a deceased person. 28. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.3.2010 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No.7-N/7/2008 is set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to them. Since the accused are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 29. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants of the accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.