JUDGMENT SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal has arisen against the impugned judgment rendered on 10.4.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby it while reversing the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh acquitted the accused for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Pawan Kumar was the father of two sons namely Manoj Kumar and Vinod Kumar resident of village Kanoj. On 28.4.2004 two boys namely Amit Kumar and Rishu came to the house of complainant and asked the complainant that the accused who was Head Master in Government Primary School, Kanol had called his son Manoj Kumar. Upon this son of complainant, Manoj Kumar started crying. Upon asking by the complainant, he told that the accused used to show him blue movies and also used to put his private part in his mouth. It was further revealed that the accused also used to put his private part in the anus of Manoj Kumar. The accused had done said immoral act for so many times. The other son of the complainant namely Vinod Kumar had also studied in the school of the accused, therefore, he was also asked by the complainant as said Vinod Kumar had stayed in the house of the accused for 10/11 days in the month of March. Vinod Kumar also told the complainant that the accused used to do the aforesaid immoral acts with him also. This fact was narrated by the complainant to his fellow villagers. Consequently, one Santosh Kumar asked his sons Puran Chand and Sanjiv Kumar about the conduct of accused/appellant. The aforesaid sons of Santosh Kumar also told him that accused had been doing aforesaid immoral acts with them also. It was also disclosed by the children that they were threatened and criminally intimidated by the accused not to disclose his aforesaid activities. As the result, the matter was reported to the police and relevant F.I.R. was registered in the Police Station Jawalamukhi District Kangra on 30.4.2004. After completion of the investigation, challan, under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. As the result, the matter was reported to the police and relevant F.I.R. was registered in the Police Station Jawalamukhi District Kangra on 30.4.2004. After completion of the investigation, challan, under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. The trial Court charged the accused for his having committed offence punishable under Sections 377/506 of Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, in which he pleaded innocence. On closure of proceedings under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused was given an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence and he chose to lead evidence in defence. 4. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused. On an appeal being preferred at the instance of the accused/appellant before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharmshala, it while reversing the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh acquitted the accused for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharmshala, are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the 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 and concomitantly an appropriate sentence be imposed upon the accused/respondent. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 7. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 7. 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. 8. The complainant Pawan Kumar in the F.I.R. lodged qua the occurrence alleged therein that his two sons namely Manoj Kumar and Vinod Kumar were subjected to sodomy by the accused. The findings of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused would not stand to suffer reversal by this Court unless on a keen discernment by this Court of the evidence on record unveils that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in its impugned judgment had grossly mis-appraised the relevant and germane evidence besides had omitted to appraise the relevant and best evidence. In the endeavour of this Court to gauge whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala had in the aforesaid manner committed or not a gross legal misdemeanor, it is imperative to analyze the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant stepped into the witness box as PW-1. The genesis of the prosecution case is that on 28.4.2004 two boys Amit Kumar and Rishu had come to the house of the complainant and apprised him that the accused had summoned his son Manoj Kumar whereupon victim Manoj Kumar started crying and unfolded that the accused had been subjecting him to carnal intercourse besides used to insert his private part in his mouth. However, PW-3 in his deposition on oath has omitted to disclose therein the fact that when both Amit Kumar and Rishu came to the house of his father and apprised him that the accused had summoned him, he started crying whereupon there was purportedly an unfoldment by him to his father the factum of his having been subjected to carnal intercourse by the accused. With PW-3 not sustaining the version propounded by PW-1 in the F.I.R. of PW-3 having proceeded to cry when Amit Kumar and Rishu at the behest of the accused had come to the house of PW-1 his father, to summon him sequelling his then taking to purportedly communicate to PW-1 the penal misdemeanors committed upon his person by the accused rather constrains an inference from this Court that the genesis of the prosecution version stands eroded. Amplifying vigor to the aforesaid inference is marshaled by the fact that the prosecution has omitted to examine Amit Kumar and Rishu the two boys who purportedly at the behest of the accused had visited the house of PW-1 the father of PW-3 with a request to PW-1 to send his son/victim Manoj Kumar to the house of the accused. Necessarily then the inference is that the visit of Amit Kumar and Rishu at the behest of the accused to the house of PW-1 the father of victim PW-3 with a request to the former to send the latter to his house whereupon the unfoldment of penal misdemeanors perpetrated upon PW-3 by the accused were made by PW-3 to PW-1 stands in the realm of prevarication. Furthermore, as emanable from the testimony of PW-1 that at the time contemporaneous to the ill-fated occurrence both his sons the victims of the offence were not prosecuting studies in the school where the accused was as their teacher imparting education to them rather with his testimony on oath telling/bespeaking the fact of both his sons having left the primary school where the accused was deployed as a teacher 3 to 4 years prior to the reporting of the incident renders frail the propagation by the prosecution that the accused while imparting education to the sons of PW-1 took to summon PW-3 to his house under the pretext of perpetrating penal misdemeanors upon him. Even if the prosecution has endeavoured to espouse that PW-3 was being subjected to penal misdemeanors by the accused since the past 4 years yet the factum of the victim aforesaid having remained reticent for an inordinately prolonged duration of four years besides his having not with promptitude reported the perpetration of penal misdemeanors upon his person by the accused renders the factum of the accused having perpetrated penal misdemeanors on his person since the past four years to be ridden with falsity besides renders the factom aforesaid being contrived. More so when no tenable explanation is emanating on his part for the belated lodging of a report with the authorities concerned qua penal misdemeanor perpetrated on his person by the accused. Even the deposition of PW-2 the victim, son of PW-1 though underscores the factum of his having stayed in the house of the accused for about 10 days in the month of March, 2004 during which period of stay the accused perpetrated penal misdemeanors upon his person, is ridden with gross prevarication constituted in the inherent falsity arising from the factum of the perpetration of penal misdemeanor on his person by the accused in the night of 16.3.2004 being a sequel to threatenings having been meted out to him by the accused that he would fail him in the examination in case he proceeds to report the incident to anybody whereas especially in falsification thereof there exists an admission of PW-2 of his not prosecuting studies in the school where the accused was deployed as a teacher at the time contemporaneous to the ill-fated occurrence. The inference which ensues from the evident fact of the victim PW-2 not pursuing studies in the school where the accused was deployed as a teacher at the time contemporaneous to the ill fated occurrence renders frail the efficacy of his deposition that he succumbed to the penal misdemeanor perpetrated on his person by the accused under a threat meted out by the latter to him of his eclipsing his academic career in case he divulges the incident to anybody. In sequel, the testimony of PW-2 as aptly concluded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, does not inspire confidence hence is discardable in concluding qua the guilt of the accused qua which he stood charged and tried. In sequel, the testimony of PW-2 as aptly concluded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, does not inspire confidence hence is discardable in concluding qua the guilt of the accused qua which he stood charged and tried. Manoj Kumar the other victim son of PW-1 has deposed as PW-3. He has in his testimony on oath deposed that in March, 2004 he was pursuing studies in 8th Class. Naturally then for reiteration when three years prior to 2004 he was not pursuing studies in the primary school where the accused was deployed as a teacher and assuming even if the penal misdemeanors if any perpetrated by the accused upon the person of PW-3 occurred three years prior to 2004 or assuming even if they occurred during the period when he was pursuing studies in the primary school where the accused was deployed as a teacher yet when the purported incidents of penal misdemeanor attributed by PW-3 to the accused remained not promptly reported to the authority concerned nor when any sound and tenable explanation emanates on his part for his not promptly lodging any report qua the occurrence to the authority concerned renders the attribution by PW-3 to the accused of penal misdemeanor having been perpetrated on his person by the accused at the time preceding three years from March, 2004 when he was not pursuing studies in the primary school where the accused was deployed as a teacher to be in its entirety a concoction as well as invention besides an afterthought to which no credence can be given by this Court. 9. Furthermore, PW-4 has also proceeded to in his testimony on oath recorded before the learned trial Court attributed to the accused an inculpatory role of his having perpetrated carnal intercourse on his person inasmuch as he has with specificity deposed that the accused took to insert his private part in his mouth and also took to insert his private organ in his anus. The aforesaid penal misdemeanor deposed with specificity by PW-4 in Court had not been disclosed with compatible specificity by him to the Investigating Officer when he proceeded to record his statement before him under Section 161 Cr. P.C. inasmuch as therein he has merely stated that the accused had committed an immoral act with him. The aforesaid penal misdemeanor deposed with specificity by PW-4 in Court had not been disclosed with compatible specificity by him to the Investigating Officer when he proceeded to record his statement before him under Section 161 Cr. P.C. inasmuch as therein he has merely stated that the accused had committed an immoral act with him. The testimony on oath of PW-4 is steeped in hyper falsity arising from the fact that the incidents of penal misdemeanor attributed to the accused by him occurred about six years prior to his unfoldment thereof at his instance. The prolonged reticence of six years on his part or his omitting to promptly lodge the report with the authority concerned with promptitude especially when no sound explanation is forthcoming for the belated communication at his instance of the penal misdemeanor perpetrated on his person by the accused fosters an inference that the belated disclosure by him of penal misdemeanor perpetrated on his person by the accused, is gripped with the vice of afterthought hence not inspiring the trust and confidence of this Court. Even though the father of PW-4 in his testimony has concerted to afford a purported explanation for the belated unfoldment to him by PW-4 qua the factum of penal misdemeanor having come to be perpetrated on his person by the accused and which explanation is embedded in the factum of PW-4 being beset with the problems of passing stools which led him to believe that he was suffering from some disease and which he thought would be redeemed by medical treatment yet when he omits to portray any cogent proof of any medical treatment having been purveyed to PW-4 rather mobilizes an inference that PW-4 in sequel to the purported perpetration of penal misdemeanor on his person by the accused was not beset with any medical problems rather PW-4 proceeded to unravel the purported misdeeds of the accused only on his having been prompted to do so by PW-1. In sequel the testimonies in their entirety of PW-4 and PW-5 are neither trust worthy nor natural hence incredible. In sequel the testimonies in their entirety of PW-4 and PW-5 are neither trust worthy nor natural hence incredible. The effect of the testimony of PW-6 the Doctor who qua the victim prepared MLCs comprised in Ext.PW-6/A, Ext.PW-6/B and Ext.PW-6/C on his having locally examined the respective anal regions of the victims and on such examination his having found them to be normal besides theirs not connoting the existence thereof in personification of use of force thereon by the accused any marks or stains of injury belies the prosecution version that the victims were subjected to sodomy by the accused for a continuous period of 3-4 years. Even if the non existence of injuries in the respective anal regions of the victims would not per-se convey that the victims were not subjected to sodomy by the accused as the non occurrence thereon of injuries would arise only in the event of the accused having introduced his penis slowly and carefully therein without using force. However, the victims do not in their respective testimonies unfold the factum that the accused while having subjected them respectively to sodomy had introduced his penis slowly and carefully in their respective anal areas/region, necessarily then the non existence of injuries in the respective anal regions of the victims cannot be attributed to a careful, slow and cautious introduction by the accused of his penis thereon. As a sequel then the lack of existence of any injury in their respective anal regions as displayed in the MLCs aforesaid prepared qua them by PW-6 is rather personificatory of the fact that the accused did not also use any force or violence in allegedly inserting or introducing his penis in the respective anal regions of the victims. Noteworthingly the effect of the testimony of PW-6 is that it constrains this Court to conclude with aplomb that even the medical evidence omits to corroborate the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the apt conclusion which is to be drawn by this Court is that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala necessitate reverence by this Court. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.