Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1223 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Reeta Devi

2015-09-02

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, rendered in Sessions Case No. 14-P/VII/2007, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused for theirs having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 372, 376 (2)(g), 506, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 4.2.2007 a written complaint addressed by the prosecutrix to In-charge Police Station, Jogindernagar accompanied by the copy of daily diary No.9 of 4.2.2007, Police Station Jogindernagar, District Mandi was received in Police Station, Palampur disclosing therein that she is the resident of Samlot, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., aged 14 years and she used to go to ration shop of one Partap Singh to purchase ration for her house. Smt. Soma Devi, the wife of Partap Singh, called her one day to her room and thereafter she had a sweet talks with her and thereafter asked the prosecutrix to accompany her to the house of her daughter by making any excuse to her grand-mother as to claim to visit her friend's house and thereafter the victim was taken by Soma Devi to the house of her daughter Reeta Devi at Village Harabag where the victim was persuaded to enter upon for committing bad act as it had no effect since Soma Devi claimed her approach to Dy. S.P. and thereby police could not damage her. On the next day Reeta Devi met the victim at Jogindernagar and called her to Baijnath in a bus along alalone as Reeta Devi said her to meet her there and thereby none would suspect as onwards Reeta undertakes to accompany her. S.P. and thereby police could not damage her. On the next day Reeta Devi met the victim at Jogindernagar and called her to Baijnath in a bus along alalone as Reeta Devi said her to meet her there and thereby none would suspect as onwards Reeta undertakes to accompany her. The victim has further disclosed in her complaint that Reeta took her to Nagrota to some one's house where she was made to sit in a room and Reeta left to some other room and after some time one person came over there who bolted the room from inside and started teasing her and when she cried and called Reeta to be her sister then Reeta coming over there from the other room and bolted the room from outside and thereafter the victim was raped and she became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness Reeta Devi gave her Rs.1000/- and left at Baijnath from where the victim came to Jogindernagar. The victim has further disclosed in her written complaint that second time she was taken by Reeta to Hotel Pops, Gopalpur as the victim was accompanied by another woman namely Poonam where she was raped in a Hotel by two persons and thereafter Reeta gave her Rs.200/- and one Mobile Phone. The victim has further disclosed in her complaint that after some days she was taken to Palampur Rest House where she was raped by two persons and in the evening Reeta accompanied her upto Baijnath where she was given Rs.500/- by Reeta. The victim has further disclosed in her written complaint that Reeta threatened her thereafter if she disclosed these facts to any one and further proclaimed to be lifted her from her house as the the victim claimed herself to be poor person and thereby sought assistance of the police. On the basis of aforesaid facts FIR was registered in Police Station, Palampur and the investigation was carried out. During the course of the investigation the victim was sought to be medically examined and on her medical examination she was opined to be habitual of sexual intercourse and her bone age was opined to be between 15 to 17 years. The police, during investigation obtained the birth certificates of the prosecutrix from Senior Secondary Girls School, Jogindernagar and Nagar Panchayat Jogindernagar in which the date of birth of the victim was found to be 10.06.1992. The police, during investigation obtained the birth certificates of the prosecutrix from Senior Secondary Girls School, Jogindernagar and Nagar Panchayat Jogindernagar in which the date of birth of the victim was found to be 10.06.1992. Thereafter, accused Reeta, and Poonam Thakur were arrested. The places of occurrences were identified by the victim and the visitors register maintained in Hotel Pops was taken into possession and thereafter accused Happy and Nek Ram were arrested and they were got medically examined. The police also get the place of occurrence to be identified from accused Reeta and Poonam Thakur and thereafter arrested accused Hoshiar Singh. During the course of identification parade accused Hoshiar Singh, Nek Ram and Happy were identified by the victim. The police has also arrested the accused Rajesh Saini and Harinder Pal Singh and both of them on theirs being subjected to medical examination by the medical officer, they were opined to be capable of doing sexual intercourse. During identification parade accused Rajesh Saini and Harinder Pal Singh were also identified by the victim. On completion of the investigation, the police came to the conclusion that accused Soma Devi and Reeta after giving allurement to the victim persuaded her for illicit intercourse and thereby used her for prostitution being minor and as such Soma Reeta and Poonam Thakur used to accompany the victim to be taken outside her house and thereby practiced prostitution and also used the victim being minor for the purpose of prostitution for consideration as the victim was taken on 20.01.2007 by Reeta Devi to Pops Hotel, Chachian where the victim was raped by Rajesh Saini and Harinder Pal Sodhi and Reeta had also sexual intercourse with accused Rajesh Saini and Harinder Pal Singh Sodhi and thereafter Reeta paid Rs.1000/- to the victim. The police had also come to the conclusion that the victim was taken on 21.1.2007 by accused Reeta to HPSEB, Rest House, Palampur where accused Nek Ram committed rape with the victim as the accused Happy brought the accused Nak Ram and accused Hoshiar Singh provided room of the rest house to accused as also had sexual intercourse with accused Reeta Devi and paid Rs.500/- to the victim. The police had also come to the conclusion that accused Baboo, Rajiv Gaga and Sushil as well as Deepu and Patiyal could not be arrested as their identity has not been established for want of complete description, though Reeta and Poonam Thakur accompanied the victim at Varuni House, Chaudhary Cottage, Mecloadganj and Jagtamba Hotel Dahad where the victim was raped by the accused and Reeta and Poonam had also sexual intercourse and thereafter paid consideration to the victim. 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. Accused Reeta Devi, Soma Devi, Poonam Thakur were charged for theirs having committed offences under Sections 372, 506 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and accused Hoshiar Singh, Rajesh Saini, Nek Ram, Happy and Harinder Pal Singh were charged for theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 506 and 120-B of the IPC by the learned trial Court. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were 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 misappreciation 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. 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 prosecution version is spelt out in Ex.PW7/A, besides in Ex.PW7/H. The former is the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix with the police station concerned and the latter is the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., recorded by the prosecutrix before the Magistrate concerned The prosecutrix is alleged to have been on or before 29.10.2006, 31.12.2006, 20/21.1.2007 while being facilitated for consideration by accused Soma, Rita and Punam Thakur subjected to while hers being a minor, forcible sexual intercourse at Pops Hotel, Chachian, HPSEB Rest House Palampur, Varuni House Khada Danda Road Mcleodganj and Chauhdary Cottage Jogibara Road Macleodganj. However, the report qua the alleged occurrences with the police station concerned came to be lodged on 04.02.2007. The sole testimony of the prosecutrix while engendering trustworthiness, besides inspiring confidence can constitute the anvil for securing findings of conviction against the accused/respondents herein. The factum whether the statement of the prosecutrix is ingrained with credit worthiness would ad nauseam be adverted to hereinafter. At the out set, it is imperative to determine whether the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged occurrence was a minor especially when the evidence on record, whose probative worth would be adverted to, besides evaluated hereinafter may unfold the factum of the sexual intercourses to which she was allegedly forcibly subjected to, by the accused were aroused by her consent. Ex.PW8/A records the factum of date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 10.06.1992. However, Ex.PW8/A is the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix. It merely manifests the fact of hers having been admitted in 6th class in Senior Secondary Girls School, Jogindernagar and having been withdrawn therefrom in 7th Class. The occurrence of an entry of the date of birth of the prosecutrix therein would acquire tenacity only in the event of the prosecution having adduced into evidence the record maintained in the school where the prosecutrix stood admitted. The occurrence of an entry of the date of birth of the prosecutrix therein would acquire tenacity only in the event of the prosecution having adduced into evidence the record maintained in the school where the prosecutrix stood admitted. Since, the record of the school where the prosecutrix was admitted remained unadduced by the prosecution whereas it constituted the best evidence to display that the recording of the date of birth of the prosecutrix in school leaving certificate constituted in Ex.PW8/A portrayed an accurate depiction thereof, in sequel, absence of its adduction, constrains an inference that the reflections in Ex.PW8/A qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix being 10.06.1992 cannot be imputed credence nor hence it can be concluded to be an authentic date of birth of the prosecutrix, more so, when the adduction into evidence of the records of the school where the prosecutrix stood admitted would have portrayed whether the entry recorded therein was or was not at the instance of the father of the prosecutrix for, hence, its being imbued with legal vigour or its being legally frail. Reiteratedly for non adduction of the records of the school where the prosecutrix stood admitted, a firm conclusion which comes to be drawn by this Court is that the entry qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded in Ex.PW8/A is neither founded upon nor embedded in the apposite best evidence nor when the authenticity of source thereof, besides its probative efficacy is obscure, hence, unreliable. Besides Ex.PW9/A reflects the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 10.06.1992 yet it too does not acquire any hue of veracity given the occurrence in the deposition of PW-9 of the entry qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix therein having come to be recorded with an ink pen whereas the remaining entries in the register are in ball pen. Moreover, the person who incorporated the entry qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix in Ex.PW9/A though deposed by PW9 to be in service yet when he remained unexamined for eliciting from him, the basis on which he entered with an ink pen the date of birth of the prosecutrix in Ex.PW9/A renders hence the incorporation of the date of birth of the prosecutrix in Ex.PW9/A to be ridden with suspicion hence not reliable, being engineered as well as manipulated. PW-6 Dr. PW-6 Dr. Kalpana Mahajan, Radiologist has in Ex.PW6/C opined the bone age of the prosecutrix to be 15 to 17 years, besides she in her cross-examination admits that a variance of 2-3 years occurs in the age of the prosecutrix opined by her to be ranging between 15 to 17 years. In sequel, when the benefit of the upper margin is to be given to the accused, hence, the prosecutrix is to be construed to be aged above 17 years hence not a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence. Reinforcingly, with the prosecutrix in her cross-examination having admitted that her mother had left her when she was aged 3 years and that it was 17 years ago when her mother had left her engenders an inference that the prosecutrix as portrayed by the aforesaid discussion was not a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence. 10. Having determined that the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged occurrence was not a minor, the further factum which remains to be fathomed is whether the testimony of the prosecutrix constituted in Ex.PW7/A and in Ex.PW7/H has remained unfaulted for occurrences therein of any intra se contradictions, besides whether the revelations qua the occurrences by the prosecutrix in both Ex.PW7/A and in Ex.PW7/H do not suffer from the taint of any intra se contradictions with her deposition recorded on oath in Court. Moreover, it has also to be determined whether the deposition of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief stands uneroded in her crosse-xamination. In the event of intra se contradictions existing in the narration qua the occurrences by the prosecutrix in Ex.PW7/A vis-a-vis Ex.PW7/H, besides with her deposition on oath recorded in Court underscoring contradictions with both Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/H, as also, with her testimony in her examination-in-chief having suffered erosion by hers contradicting it in her cross-examination, would lend impetus to a natural inference that the testimony of the prosecutrix is legally unworthwhile besides incredible. 11. Ex.PW7/A is the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix with the police station concerned on 4.2.2007. 11. Ex.PW7/A is the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix with the police station concerned on 4.2.2007. In Ex.PW7/A though she has disclosed that she was taken to different places on different dates during the month of December, 2006 and January, 2007 yet she has not mentioned therein the specific dates when she was subjected to alleged forcible sexual intercourses by the male accused while hers having been facilitated by the female accused for consideration to be subjected to forcible sexual intercourses by the former. The specific dates on which she was subjected by the accused to the commission of offences upon her remains unmentioned even in Ex.PW7/H. The prosecutrix in Ex.PW7/A advances a purported explanation for the belated lodging of a report qua the incident comprised in the fact of hers having been threatened by accused Rita to be lifted from her house in case of any disclosure qua the occurrence to any one. Nonetheless, the meting out of or advancing of threats by accused Rita Devi to her against hers disclosing the incident to anyone remains unenunciated in her deposition recorded on oath by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the version spelt out by the prosecutrix in Ex.PW7/A qua threats against hers disclosing the incident to anyone having been advanced to her by accused Rita and its purportedly constituting the explanation for the belated lodging of the FIR when remains un-communicated in her recorded deposition on oath, obviously when the version aforesaid in Ex.PW7/A constituting the purported explanation for the belated lodging of the FIR having hence suffered intra se contradictions comprised in her reticence in unfolding the said version in her recorded deposition on oath renders the said version qua its succoring a conclusion qua its constituting a tenable explanation qua the belated lodging of an FIR qua the occurrence, to be bereft of veracity rather ridden with the taint of falsity. Consequently, with the delay in the lodging of the FIR having remained unexplained, the version constituted in Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/H qua the incident, besides her version on oath qua the incident before the learned trial Court has to be construed to be an invention or a concoction being engineered by an afterthought. Consequently, with the delay in the lodging of the FIR having remained unexplained, the version constituted in Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/H qua the incident, besides her version on oath qua the incident before the learned trial Court has to be construed to be an invention or a concoction being engineered by an afterthought. Moreover, when hence the aforesaid fact of hers having not divulged the incident to anyone earlier than on 4.2.2007 qua occurrences which took place in the months of December, 2006 and January, 2007, especially when the inferences drawn hereinabove dispel the fact of any impressions of exertion of any threat or duress against her disclosing the incident enuring or remaining etched in her psyche has invited an inference of the narrations qua the incident comprised in Ex.PW1/A to be an afterthought. The further omission on her part while traveling alone from her house to board the bus at Jogindernagar for commuting thereof to Baijnath and Dharamshala and commuting from the latter places to home, to not disclose the incident to the passengers occupying the bus or her relatives or her grandmother, besides reticences on her part as also omissions on her part to raise an outcry against the commission upon her, if any, at the instance of the accused of the offences alleged against them for attracting the attention of the employees or of the occupants of the hotels/rest houses which she occupied, facilitates a deduction that the penal acts, if any, attributed by the prosecutrix to the accused were consensual. Moreover, the lack of specificity of dates of occurrence of the alleged penal acts attributed to the accused by her which nebulousness qua the aforesaid facet in both Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/H as well as in her deposition recorded on oath constrains a conclusion that her version qua the alleged occurrences does not engender the confidence of this Court. Moreover, the lack of specificity of dates of occurrence of the alleged penal acts attributed to the accused by her which nebulousness qua the aforesaid facet in both Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/H as well as in her deposition recorded on oath constrains a conclusion that her version qua the alleged occurrences does not engender the confidence of this Court. The fact that in Ex.PW7/H, she propounds that she visited 7 places on different dates yet when she in Ex.PW7/H underscores the fact of one Saini and one Sardar being present at Pops Hotel yet does not name them to be the persons who committed penal misdemeanors upon her, leads to an apt sequel that with the prosecutrix having in Ex.PW7/A named Saini and Sardar to be the persons who at Pops Hotel perpetrated sexual intercourse upon her, whereas, in Ex.PW7/H she exculpates them of an incriminatory role previously attributed by her to them hence with intra se contradictions having occurred vis-a-vis the attribution by her of an incriminatory role to Saini and Sardar in Ex.PW7/A with Ex. PW7/H wherein there is an exculpation of an incriminatory role to the aforesaid, that as such the version spelt out by the prosecutrix in Ex.PW7/A attributing an incriminatory role to Saini and Sardar is rendered legally unwrothwhile and untrustworthy. Consequently, qua both Saini and Sardar as aptly concluded by the learned trial Court no findings of conviction can be returned for the charges for which they stood charged. Moreover, in Ex.PW7/A, the prosecutrix narrates that at Palampur in HPSEB Rest House two persons committed rape upon her. On the other hand, in Ex.PW7/H she has divulged therein that only Nek Ram perpetrated a penal misdemeanor upon her. Obviously, with the prosecutrix having hence unfolded a rife contradiction while attributing in Ex.PW7/A an inculpatory role to two persons in the incident which occurred at Palampur in HPSEB Rest House, whereas in Ex.PW7/H there is an attribution of an inculpatory role to only one Nek Ram renders her attribution of an inculpatory role to Nek Ram also to be a concoction as well as an invention. In Ex.PW 7/H, the prosecutrix has alleged several incidents of penal misdemeanors having been perpetrated upon her initially at Nagrota Bagwan, then at the Rest House/Guest House at Dharamshala as well as at Chaudhary cottage Mecloadganj, Varuni Hotel Mecloadganj and in Jagtamba Hotel Malan. In Ex.PW 7/H, the prosecutrix has alleged several incidents of penal misdemeanors having been perpetrated upon her initially at Nagrota Bagwan, then at the Rest House/Guest House at Dharamshala as well as at Chaudhary cottage Mecloadganj, Varuni Hotel Mecloadganj and in Jagtamba Hotel Malan. However, the persons who perpetrated the penal misdemeanors upon the prosecutrix at the places aforesaid stand unimpleaded as accused nor the occurrences aforesaid detailed in Ex.PW7/H find any recital in Ex.PW7/A. The fifth occurrence is alleged to have occurred at Pops hotel wherein there is an attribution of an inculpatory role to Saini and Sardar which attribution of an inculpatory role to them for the reasons aforesaid is legally frail. In addition, the sixth incident which occurred at Palampur in HPSEB Rest House, qua which in Ex.PW7/H there is an attribution of an inculplatory role to accused Nek Ram, which attribution for the reasons constituted hereinabove, has been construed to be suffering legal emasculation arising from the fact of hers in contradiction in Ex.PW7/A recited the fact of hers being at the place aforesaid forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse by two persons. Besides the prosecutrix proclaims that the 7th incident of a penal misdemeanor perpetrated upon her person occurred at Bhunter yet the persons who perpetrated the penal misdemeanor upon her remained unimpleaded as accused to face the trial given the statement of the Investigating Officer that the whereabouts and identity of those persons could not be established, even when the prosecutrix during her recorded deposition on oath before the learned trial Court had specifically named the persons. Even otherwise with the prosecutrix in Ex.PW7/H having proclaimed that the 7th incident of penal misdemeanor was perpetrated upon her at Bhuntar by one Rajender or Rabender yet when she has neither therein recited the specific date of the alleged occurrence nor she has pronounced therein that at Bhunter she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, consequently, with hers for the reasons aforesaid being a major, she is to be concluded to have voluntarily visited Bhuntar and consensually succumbed to the sexual overtures of Rajender or Rabender. 12. 12. Apart therefrom, the attribution by the prosecutrix in Ex.PW7/H of an incriminatory role to Deepu and Patiyal of theirs having subjected her to sexual intercourse at Jagdamba Hotel, Malan, besides to one Babbu of his at Varuni Hotel, Mecloadganj having too subjected her to sexual intercourse cannot constitute evidence against the aforesaid of theirs at the places aforesaid having subjected her to forcible sexual intercourses especially when she in Ex.PW7/H has not with specificity articulated the dates on which the alleged occurrences took place for gauging whether they stood committed upon her at a time proximate to the narrations unraveling an incriminatory role to the aforesaid in Ex.PW7/H. In sequel, the inevitable conclusion is that the persons aforesaid named in Ex.PW7/H are to be inferred to have perpetrated sexual intercourse upon her while it having been spurred from consent meted to them by the prosecutrix. More so, for the reasons aforesaid their naming in Ex.PW 7/H is to be construed to be remotely distant or improximate in time to the occurrences attributed to them in Ex. PW7/H and with the delay in the imputations against them by the prosecutrix having remained unexplained renders their naming by the prosecutrix in Ex.PW7/H to be a contrived mechanism on her part. 13. Furthermore, the efficacy of entries Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D in Register Ex.PW13/B purportedly in substantiation of the factum of the prosecutrix along with the woman accused besides one Saini and Sardar having occupied room No.202 in Pops Hotel, Chachian, stands effaced by the fact that the said entries stand recorded in different ink vis-a-vis the other entries recorded in hotel register in Ex.PW13/B, hence, in face thereof and with PW-14 Raj Kumar, the Manager of Pops Hotel being unable to spell out in his deposition that the accused or the prosecutrix had occupied the hotel, an inference which ensues is that the version of the prosecutrix of hers along with the accused having visited Pops Hotel stands to face obliteration. Even the deposition of PW-11 underscoring the fact that the rooms in HPSEB, Rest House, Palampur are allotted with the permission of the S.D.O., repulses the effect of the version of the prosecutrix of hers having stayed at HPSEB, Rest House, Palampur along with the male accused while theirs being accompanied by the lady accused. Even the deposition of PW-11 underscoring the fact that the rooms in HPSEB, Rest House, Palampur are allotted with the permission of the S.D.O., repulses the effect of the version of the prosecutrix of hers having stayed at HPSEB, Rest House, Palampur along with the male accused while theirs being accompanied by the lady accused. When the entries comprised in Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D construed in conjunction with deposition of PW- 14, who has been unable to spell out in his deposition the fact of the prosecutrix or the accused having purportedly stayed therein, besides with PW-11 having proclaimed that the rooms in HPSEB, Rest House, Palampur cannot come to be alloted except with the permission of the SDO, constrains a conclusion, especially when there is no evidence to portray that when the prosecutrix along with the accused purportedly stayed therein the prior permission of the SDO stood obtained for portraying that hence it stood occupied at any stage by the prosecutrix along with the accused, that neither accused Rita nor accused Punam and Soma had along with the prosecutrix and the male accused stayed there. 14. The identification of the accused under memos Ex.PW21/O and Ex.PW26/J wherein the prosecutrix identified the accused cannot make the said factum stand on a sacrosanct pedestal especially when the said identification of the accused by the prosecutrix comprised in the aforesaid exhibits to acquire evidentiary worth it was peremptorily required to be pronounced by PW26 of the accused having been after their arrest shown to the prosecutrix with muffled faces, yet when in his examination-in-chief PW-26 though has deposed that the accused were after their arrest taken with muffled faces yet when in his cross-examination he has specifically admitted that he did not mention in the record the fact of any such accused having been taken with muffled faces. Besides, when the prosecutrix in her statement has disclosed that when she proceeded to identify the accused in the identification parade held in the jail premises the IO/SHO remained present throughout, leads to an apt sequel that the efficacy of the said memos comprising the identification of the accused by the prosecutrix stands eroded, more so, when for the reasons assigned hereinabove her testimony while being rife with intra se contradictions vis-a-vis her statement recorded in EX.PW7/A and in Ex.PW7/H, is rendered unworthy of credit. 15. 15. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, 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 evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 16. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.