Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1133 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dumnu Ram

2015-08-19

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. rendered in Sessions trial No. 42 of 2008, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused for his having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 the Indian Penal Code. 2. FIR Ex. PW7/A, lodged qua the occurrence with police station, Sundernagar, records in brief the facts relating to the alleged incident. The facts apposite to decide the appeal, are that on 15.5.2008 at about 6.30-7 p.m., the prosecutrix came to Kali temple at Bobbar to attend a "Jagrata". On the intervening night at about 1.30 a.m. Smt. Chhamma Devi wife of the Pujari of the temple sent the prosecutrix to fetch the blankets from her house. On her way back to the temple with blankets, accused Dumnu Ram alias Ramesh came across her and commented that it was time to take trip. The accused made the prosecutrix forcibly sit on the motor cycle. The accused took the prosecutrix in a Nala situate above the road and tried to commit wrongful act with the prosecutrix. The shrieks, hues and cries of the prosecutrix did not attract any person towards the Nala and the accused made the prosecutrix lie on the ground and opened the string of her salwar and committed sexual intercourse with her. The accused committed the act of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix twice or thrice and threatened to do away with the life of the prosecutrix if she narrated the incident to any person. The prosecutrix became unconscious. The accused, in the meantime, got a telephonic call and the mobile fell from the hands of the accused, on which the prosecutrix fled from the place to the temple where she disclosed the occurrence to Ms. Daya and Rozy. Smt. Kunta Devi wife of Sh. Sanju told the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to any person. On account of the threats of the accused, the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to any person. The prosecutrix, on the night of 16.05.2008 after jagrata stayed at the house of her maternal uncle. Daya and Rozy. Smt. Kunta Devi wife of Sh. Sanju told the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to any person. On account of the threats of the accused, the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to any person. The prosecutrix, on the night of 16.05.2008 after jagrata stayed at the house of her maternal uncle. Smt. Kunta again met the prosecutrix in the evening of 17.05.2008 and caught the prosecutrix from her arm and tried to prevail upon her to stay at her house on the pretext that the accused was also coming to her house on that day. On finding the prosecutrix with Smt. Kunta Devi, her maternal uncles S/Sh. Guddu and Milkhi Ram, on inquiry were narrated the incident. The prosecutrix had washed her wearing apparels at the house of Ms. Rozy, who had also provided her apparels to the prosecutrix for change. On 18.05.2008, the prosecutrix was brought by her maternal uncles to her home where she narrated the incident to her mother. On finding the commission of offence under Section 376 and 506 IPC, the police commenced the investigation. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sarla, who opined that the prosecutrix had been exposed to sexual assault per MLC Ex.PW2/C and samples were preserved. The accused was arrested and was medically examined by Dr. Sanjay Pathak, who opined that the accused was capable of performing sexual act. During the course of the investigation, the police also took into possession birth certificate of the prosecutrix from the concerned panchayat. The motor cycle of the accused along with its documents and its key was also taken into possession in presence of the witnesses vide separate recovery memo. The case property was handed over to the MHC and samples were sent for analysis to the FSL. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. The accused was charged for his having committed offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC by the learned trial Court. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Court, in which the accused claimed false implication. 5. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Court, in which the accused claimed false implication. 5. The learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The first witness who stepped into the witness box to support the prosecution case is PW-1 Smt. Chhamma Devi. In her deposition, she has recorded the fact of her husband being a priest of Kali Mata temple at Bobar. She proceeded to testify that on the intervening night of 15/16.05.2008, there was a jagrata in the said temple. 2-3 deities of the area had also congregated in the temple besides, a large gathering had assembled at the temple. Though, she has deposed that she knows the prosecutrix yet she has denied the fact of the prosecutrix having attended the "Jagrata". She has also denied the fact that she had sent the prosecutrix to bring blankets from her house during night time. In sequel, this witness has reneged besides resiled from her previous statement recorded in writing. 10. PW-2 Dr. Sarla in her deposition has proved MLC Ex.PW2/B. Ex.PW2/B underscores the observations recorded by PW-2 Dr. Sarla on hers examining the prosecutrix. In sequel, this witness has reneged besides resiled from her previous statement recorded in writing. 10. PW-2 Dr. Sarla in her deposition has proved MLC Ex.PW2/B. Ex.PW2/B underscores the observations recorded by PW-2 Dr. Sarla on hers examining the prosecutrix. She in Ex.PW2/B has on hers examining the prosecutrix enunciated therein the hereinafter extracted details:- "The prosecutrix was conscious, co-operative, well oriented in time and place, wearing green coloured floweral suite, which was light coloured. The prosecutrix was normal built, pulse 80 per minute, regular, BP 130/80 mm of HG. Height was 5 feet. Dental examination: 7/7-6/6 Prosecutrix had taken bath and washed her clothes. Menstrual history: Menarche started about 5-6 months back. LMP: 7.5.2008 External examination: Both breasts were developing. Axillary hair were developing black in colour. Labia majora and labia minora were developing. Pubic hair were black in colour, developed. Multiple abrasions were present on lower back and on both buttocks. Old and healed scab formed. Internal examination: P/S-Hymentorned, foul smell discharge was present. P/v-One finger was going with painfully." 11. The prosecutrix has stepped into the witness box as PW-7. She has testified on oath that on 15.5.2008, there was a religious function at Maha Kali Temple in Village Bobar. She along with her sister and brother participated in that function. She arrived at the temple at about 5.30 p.m.. Her father served food to the gathering. She deposes that she was sent by the wife of priest to bring blankets from her house at about 1.30 a.m., at night. She acceded to her request and brought the blankets and handed over the same to the aforesaid in the temple. Subsequently, she came to the house of the priest to sleep there during night. She deposes that on the road the accused met her and inquired from her about her identity. The accused has been deposed by her to have lifted her and carried her on his motor cycle up-till a nearby school. At the school adjoining to the temple, the accused has been deposed by the prosecutrix to have committed rape upon her. She has testified that the accused received a call on his mobile from the son of her maternal uncle, who inquired from him about her. To the said query posed by the son of her maternal uncle to the accused, the latter apprized him that he was alone at his residential house. She has testified that the accused received a call on his mobile from the son of her maternal uncle, who inquired from him about her. To the said query posed by the son of her maternal uncle to the accused, the latter apprized him that he was alone at his residential house. The accused is alleged to have twice or thrice subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. She deposes that blood oozed from her vagina. She though has deposed of hers having raised an alarm yet the accused then gagged her mouth. Since the mobile held by the accused in his hand fell down, hence, when the accused endeavoured to search it, she noticing an opportunity to flee, fled from the site of occurrence. When she was fleeing from the site of occurrence about 15-20 boys came at the place of incident, who proceeded to damage the motor cycle of the accused. She deposes that on reaching the temple she narrated the incident to Kanta Devi. Besides, she narrated the incident to Rozy, the sister of the priest. She also deposes that she wore the clothes of Rozy. The clothes worn by her at the time of occurrence have been deposed by her to have been washed by her at the residential house of the priest. She deposes that she again went to the temple and Kanta contacted the accused over telephone. She proceeds to depose that she went to the residential house of her maternal uncle after the incident and narrated the incident to her maternal aunt Rama Devi, who in turn narrated the incident to her maternal uncle Milkhi Ram. She deposes that on 17.5.2008, she remained in the residential house of her maternal uncle and on 18.5.2008, she was brought to her house by her maternal uncle and maternal aunt. Her maternal uncle and aunt have been deposed by her to have narrated the incident to her parents. The prosecutrix has deposed that her mother enquired from the accused as to why he has committed the offence yet the accused told her mother that he had done what he liked and asked her mother to take any action she desires. FIR Ex.PW7/A has been proven by the prosecutrix. During the course of hers recording her deposition, parcel Ex.P-1 was produced and with the permission of the Court it was permitted to be opened. Shirt Ex.P-1, trouser Ex. FIR Ex.PW7/A has been proven by the prosecutrix. During the course of hers recording her deposition, parcel Ex.P-1 was produced and with the permission of the Court it was permitted to be opened. Shirt Ex.P-1, trouser Ex. P-2 (Salwar), scarf Ex.P-3 have been deposed by her to be the same which she was wearing at the time of incident and which were washed by her. She has deposed that the recovery memo prepared by the police qua the recovery of motor cycle is comprised in Ex.PW7/B and it bears her signature. In her cross-examination, she deposes that a report qua the incident with the police was not lodged on 18.05.2008 yet was lodged on 19.8.2008. In her cross-examination, she further deposes that on the night of 17.05.2008, she stayed in the house of her maternal uncle Guddu and Milkhi Ram. However, on the night of 16.5.2008, she deposes hers having stayed in the house of the priest of the temple. The presence of her cousin Sonu as well as of her father in the temple on 16.05.2008 has been admitted by the prosecutrix in her cross-examination. On 16.0.5.2008, she has deposed that during the day time, she narrated the incident to her cousin. Guddu and Milkhi have been deposed by her to be not her real maternal uncles. The house of her maternal grand father has been deposed by her to be by the side of the house of Guddu and Milkhi. The maternal grand father and maternal grand mother have been deposed by her to be available in their house on the relevant day. 12. PW-8, Karam Singh is the father of the prosecutrix. He deposes that on 15.5.2008 he had attended a religious ceremony in Kali Mata temple at Bobar. He proceeds to depose his having performed his duty of serving meals to the devotees, who participated in the religious ceremony. He was accompanied by his two daughters and his son to the temple. He deposes that he remained busy in providing meals to the devotees in the temple upto 4 a.m. of 16.0.5.2008 and thereafter went to sleep. He had directed his son and daughters to reach home in advance. He was accompanied by his two daughters and his son to the temple. He deposes that he remained busy in providing meals to the devotees in the temple upto 4 a.m. of 16.0.5.2008 and thereafter went to sleep. He had directed his son and daughters to reach home in advance. He has pronounced in his deposition that he had reached home on 16.05.2008 at about 6/7 p.m. On his reaching home, he noticed that though his son and one daughter had reached home yet the prosecutrix had not reached home. He proceeded to enquire about the prosecutrix from his in-laws, who apprised him that she was in their area. On 18.05.2008, the prosecutrix along with 12-15 persons including his brother-in-law came to his house whereupon his brother-in-law apprised him about the incident. On inquiry by his wife from the prosecutrix qua the incident, she disclosed to her the fact of hers having been subjected to rape by the accused on the intervening night of 15/16.05.2008. Accordingly, the prosecutrix was brought to the police station where the case was registered. In his cross-examination, he deposes that Sonu did not tell him about the alleged occurrence on 16.05.2008. In cross-examination, he further deposes that a criminal case has been registered in Police Station, Sundernagar against him for beating his mother and daughter. He has feigned ignorance to the suggestion put to him by the defence counsel whether the prosecutrix had complained against him that he wants to put an end to her life besides has feigned ignorance to another suggestion put to him by the defence counsel of his pressurising her to falsely depose against the accused. Moreover, he has equivocated while purveying an answer to the suggestion put to him during his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel whether the prosecutrix has deposed against the accused under his pressure. 13. PW-9 Smt. Rama Devi, PW-12 Guddu Ram and PW-13 Milkhi Ram, who are the maternal aunt and maternal uncles of the prosecutrix, respectively, have during their respective examinations-in-chief not supported the prosecution version. They were declared hostile and were permitted by the learned trial Court on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, to be cross-examined. However, during the course of theirs being cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor no incriminating material against the accused could be elicited from them. 14. PW-10 Ms. They were declared hostile and were permitted by the learned trial Court on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, to be cross-examined. However, during the course of theirs being cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor no incriminating material against the accused could be elicited from them. 14. PW-10 Ms. Rozy deposes that the prosecutrix was not known to her. She further deposes that she does not know whether the prosecutrix had attended the religious ceremony or not. Since, she during her examination-in-chief omitted to lend support to the prosecution version, she was declared hostile and was permitted by the learned trial Court on the request of the learned public prosecutor, to be cross-examined. However, during the course of hers being subjected to cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor no incriminating material against the accused could be elicited from her. 15. PW-11 Lal Singh in his deposition has proven recovery memo Ex.PW7/B prepared by the police qua the recovery of motor cycle owned by the accused. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the motor cycle was in a good condition and was not damaged. 16. PW-14, Inspector Jagdish Chand has deposed that on 18.5.2008 at 7.0.m. prosecutrix along with her parents came to the police station and recorded FIR Ex.PW7/A. Ex.PW7/A has been deposed by him to be recorded by him in his computer as per the version of the prosecutrix and it has been deposed by him to have been signed by the prosecutrix after admitting its contents. The prosecutrix has been deposed by this witness to have been got medically examined from CH, Sundernagar vide application Ex.PW2/A. He further deposes that on the next day, he proceeded to the spot along with the prosecutrix and on her identification, prepared spot map Ex.PW14/A. On the same day, motor cycle of the accused along with RC and key has been deposed by this witness to have been taken into possession in the presence of Lal Singh and the prosecutrix vide recovery memo Ex.PW7/B. He further deposes that on the same day he arrested the accused and sent him for medical examination. He proceeded to depose that during the course of investigation he procured the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, Ex.PW3/A from the Panchayat Secretary concerned. He proceeded to depose that during the course of investigation he procured the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, Ex.PW3/A from the Panchayat Secretary concerned. Abstract thereof has been deposed by this witness to be Ex.PW3/B. He further deposes that he recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their versions. In cross-examination, he deposes that a criminal case is also registered against the father of the prosecutrix in police station, Sundernagar for giving beatings to his mother and daughter which is under investigation. 17. This Court can proceed to, on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix record findings of conviction against the accused. However, implicit reliance by this Court upon the testimony of the prosecutrix can be placed only in the event of her testimony inspiring confidence besides, being both credible and trustworthy. For gauging whether the prosecutrix has in her deposition recorded on oath before the learned trial Court unearthed therein the implicit truth qua the occurrence entails an obligation upon this Court to hence read it in a wholesome manner, besides this Court ought to on a keen discernment of the testimonies of the persons to whom revelations qua the incident were made by the prosecutrix, hence, disinter the truth or falsity of the narrations by the prosecutrix in her deposition of hers having apprised the persons enunciated therein, the details of the occurrence. 18. The genesis of the prosecution version stands comprised in the testimony of the prosecutrix wherein she unfolds the factum of hers having been sent by the wife of the priest to bring blankets from the latter's house at about 1.30 a.m, on the ill-fated day. The prosecutrix deposes hers having acceded to the said request and hers having handed-over the blankets to the wife of the priest. However, the wife of the priest has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and has deposed that the prosecutrix did not attend the religious ceremony at Kali Mata temple, Bobar. She has also denied the fact of hers having asked the prosecutrix to bring blankets from her house. However, the wife of the priest has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and has deposed that the prosecutrix did not attend the religious ceremony at Kali Mata temple, Bobar. She has also denied the fact of hers having asked the prosecutrix to bring blankets from her house. With PW- 1 having not lent succor to the version of the prosecutrix of hers having been sent by her to her house to fetch blankets which she did and handed-over to the former, rather with PW-1 denying the presence of the prosecutrix in the temple, begets a stain of falsity to the genesis of the prosecution version. Obviously, when the genesis of the prosecution version gets submerged in a taint of falsehood, as a corollary then, this Court would obviously be inclined to not construe the version rendered by the prosecutrix qua the genesis of the occurrence to be either trustworthy or credible. Apart therefrom, the prosecutrix has deposed that when she had fled from the site of occurrence, about 15-20 boys arrived there, who proceeded to damage the motor cycle of the accused. For determining whether the aforesaid deposition of the prosecutrix has any hue of veracity, an advertence to the testimony of PW-11, who is a witness to the recovery memo Ex.PW7/B vide which motor cycle was taken into possession by the police, is imperative. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the motor cycle of the accused recovered under memo Ex.PW7/B was not damaged. In sequel, hence, the testimony of the prosecutrix comprised in her examination-in-chief of 15-20 boys having damaged the motor cycle of the accused after hers having fled from the site of occurrence, stands grossly falsified. Concomitantly, it gives ground for garnering an inference that the prosecutrix has concocted a version of hers having fled from the site of occurrence after the accused having perpetrated forcible sexual inter course upon her person besides, an inference which is available to be drawn by this Court is that the prosecutrix was never in the company of the accused at the site of occurrence. The prosecutrix on conclusion of the ordeal of hers having come to be subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused, had reached the temple, where she apprised Kanta Devi about the incident. The aforesaid Kanta Devi was not examined by the prosecution. The prosecutrix on conclusion of the ordeal of hers having come to be subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused, had reached the temple, where she apprised Kanta Devi about the incident. The aforesaid Kanta Devi was not examined by the prosecution. For non examination of Kanta Devi an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution besides, an inevitable inference which is drawable is that it falsifies the version of the prosecutrix of hers, on reaching the temple after conclusion of the ordeal of hers having come to be subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused, having narrated the incident to Kanta Devi. Furthermore as a concomitant it casts an aura of doubt even qua the fact of hers having been subjected to forcible sexual inter course by the accused. Even Rozy, PW-10, the sister of the priest, who has also been deposed by the prosecutrix to have been informed by her about the alleged occurrence, has not supported the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix deposes that she had worn the clothes of Rozy yet the latter does not support the prosecutrix qua the aforesaid fact. The clothes worn by the prosecutrix at the time of occurrence, have been deposed by her to have been washed by her in the house of priest. Nonetheless, the wife of the priest, who stepped into the witness box as PW-1, has not lent an iota of support to the prosecutrix. In sequel, the apt inference which ensues is that neither the prosecutrix after hers having been subjected to alleged forcible sexual intercourse by the accused had narrated the incident to Rozy besides had also not worn the clothes of the latter nor she had washed the clothes which she was wearing at the time of the alleged occurrence, at the house of the priest. The impact of the aforesaid inferences is that it takes a heavy toll upon the version qua the incident propounded by the prosecutrix, inasmuch as it rears an inference of it having come to be engineered by the prosecutrix. The inference of the prosecutrix having deposed under compulsion and duress emanates from a communication in the cross-examination of PW-8 wherein he has admitted the factum of a criminal case having come to be registered against him in police station Sundernagar for beating his mother and daughter. The inference of the prosecutrix having deposed under compulsion and duress emanates from a communication in the cross-examination of PW-8 wherein he has admitted the factum of a criminal case having come to be registered against him in police station Sundernagar for beating his mother and daughter. He has also in cross-examination admitted the suggestion put to him by the defence counsel that on the complaint of his daughter (prosecutrix) the police has visited his house. Fortification to the inference of the prosecutrix having been compelled by PW-8 to depose falsely is lent by the factum of PW-8 equivocating while answering during his cross-examination the suggestions put to him by the learned defence counsel whether the prosecutrix had complained against him that he wants to put an end to her life besides his pressurising her to depose falsely. Moreover, the said inference is lent momentum by his also equivocating while purveying an answer to the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel whether the prosecutrix has deposed under his pressure. Consequently, the apt inference which hence is deducible is that the prosecutrix has rendered a tutored version qua the incident which obviously is uninspiring and untrustworthy. The prosecutrix in her cross-examination has deposed that on the night of 16.05.2008 she stayed at the house of the priest of the temple. However, the aforesaid deposition of the prosecutrix stands not corroborated by PW-1, the wife of the priest. In her cross-examination, she has further deposed that on the night of 17.05.2008, she stayed at the house of her maternal uncles Guddu and Milkhi Ram, wherein she narrated the incident to the wife of Milkhi Ram. None of the aforesaid had stood behind the prosecutrix besides have not lent corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix comprised in her cross-examination of hers on the night of 16.05.2008 having stayed at the house of the priest of the temple and on the night of 17.05.2008 hers having stayed at the house of Milkhi Ram and Guddu Ram. The effect of the prosecution hence having not been able to adduce tenacious evidence qua the prosecutrix having on the night of 17.05.2008 stayed at the house of Guddu, Milkhi Ram and Rama Devi, constrains an inference that the prosecutrix had resided elsewhere than at the house of Guddu, Milkhi Ram and Rama Devi. The effect of the prosecution hence having not been able to adduce tenacious evidence qua the prosecutrix having on the night of 17.05.2008 stayed at the house of Guddu, Milkhi Ram and Rama Devi, constrains an inference that the prosecutrix had resided elsewhere than at the house of Guddu, Milkhi Ram and Rama Devi. Besides, she in her cross-examination has deposed that on 16.05.2008, she stayed at the house of the priest. Even, the wife of the priest had not lent corroboration to the aforesaid factum. Omission on the part of PW- 1, the wife of the priest to corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix qua hers on the night of 16.05.2008 having stayed at her house constrains, an inference that even on the night of 16.05.2008, the prosecutrix had stayed elsewhere than at the house of the priest of the temple. The ensuing deduction is that hence the prosecutrix has contrived besides, reared a false story qua hers on the nights of 16.05.2008 and 17.05.2008 stayed at the house of the wife of the priest and at the house of Guddu Ram, Milkhi Ram and Rama Devi, respectively. Consequently, with falsity having been lent to the fact of hers having stayed on 16.05.2008 and 17.05.2008 at the aforesaid places, naturally then, the version as spelt out by the prosecutrix qua the incident cannot obviously be construed to be either trustworthy or inspiring. In aftermath, no implicit reliance can be placed by this Court on an uninspiring version qua the incident rendered by the prosecutrix. 19. Furthermore, she in her cross-examination deposes that on 16.05.2008 her father was in the temple. However, she omitted to then divulge the incident to her father. She also deposes in her cross-examination that she had on 16.05.2008 disclosed the incident to her cousin Sonu. However, the aforesaid Sonu has not been examined as a prosecution witness. His examination as a prosecution witness would have unfolded the truth qua the fact as deposed by the prosecutrix of hers having disclosed the incident to him on 16.05.2008. She also deposes in her cross-examination that she had on 16.05.2008 disclosed the incident to her cousin Sonu. However, the aforesaid Sonu has not been examined as a prosecution witness. His examination as a prosecution witness would have unfolded the truth qua the fact as deposed by the prosecutrix of hers having disclosed the incident to him on 16.05.2008. It appears that the omission by the prosecution to examine said Sonu as a prosecution witness is deliberate besides intentional as his examination would have rendered the version as propagated by the prosecutrix in her cross-examination of hers having apprised him about the incident on 16.05.2008 to be falsified, with the concomitant effect of imbuing the prosecution version qua the incident with falsity. Even, if assuming that the aforesaid Sonu had been apprised of the occurrence by the prosecutrix on 16.05.2008 yet when the report qua the incident was lodged with the police station concerned on 18.05.2008 and when the attribution of an explanation for the imprompt lodging of the FIR, is couched in the factum of Guddu Ram, Milkhi Ram and Rama Devi having come to the house of PW-8 on 18.05.2008 to apprise the latter about the incident whereupon the incident was promptly reported to the police station concerned, yet with Pws Guddu, Rama Devi and Milkhi Ram not supporting the prosecution case qua the factum of the prosecutrix having stayed at their home on 17.05.2008 and hers having disclosed the incident to them whereupon they purveyed the information to PW-8 construed in entwinement with the non examination of Sonu, renders the explanation for the belated lodging of the FIR qua the incident anchored upon the factum of it having been revealed to PW-8 by Rama Devi, Milkhi Ram and Guddu Ram only on 18.05.2008 to be in its entirety, ridden with the vice of falsehood. The effect of falsity hence embroiling the explanation for the im-prompt lodging of FIR qua the occurrence sequels an inference that the entire prosecution version is an afterthought to which no credence can be paid. Apart therefrom, the occurrence of abrasions on the person of the prosecutrix as pronounced in the MLC are to be concluded to be begotten by beatings delivered by her father upon her person. 20. Apart therefrom, the occurrence of abrasions on the person of the prosecutrix as pronounced in the MLC are to be concluded to be begotten by beatings delivered by her father upon her person. 20. For the reasons which have been recorded herein above, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of the evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 21. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. Appeal dismissed.