JUDGMENT S:K. SAHOO, J. The appellants Jitu Lohar @ Khoka and Anup Kumbhar alongwith co-accused Budhus Laguri faced trial in the Court learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in Session Trail No.92/39 of 2007 for offences punishable under sections 376(2)(g), 342/34, 307/34, 452/34 and 363/34 Indian penal code. The learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2008 though acquitted co-accused Budhus Laguri of all the charges and also the, appellants of the charge under section 342/34 IPC but found the appellants guilty, under section 376 (2)(g) IPC so also under 307/34, 363/34 and 448/34 of IPC and accordingly convicted them of such offences and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offence under section 376 (2)(g) IPC, R.I for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months for the offence under section 307/34 IPC, R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month for the offence under section 363/34 IPC and R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under section 448/34 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as per the FIR lodged by one Surya Bahadur (P.W. 7) is that he along with his wife, daughter (hereinafter the "victim" ) who was aged about 13 years and son Raja aged about 8 years and another daughter Anu were staying together in a place locally known as Mishra Khatal. The informant was working as a mason and on 19.04.2007 at about 8 0' clock in the morning, he has been to his work and at that time his wife and children were at home. In the evening hours in between 6 to 17 0' clock, he returned back home and after taking his dinner went to sleep at around 8.30 p.m. The informant and his wife Mina slept in one room and their son Raja and the victim slept in the nearby room after watching T.V. The door of the room was open. During midnight at about 2 0' clock, the informant woke up form his sleep and found the gate was open and the victim was not there in her bed room. During midnight at about 2 0' clock, the informant woke up form his sleep and found the gate was open and the victim was not there in her bed room. The informant called his wife and informed her about the absence of the victim in the house. The wife of the informant searched for the victim in the house of her mother which was situated nearby and there also she could not found the victim and accordingly she returned back home. Then the informant and his wife thinking that the victim might have gone to attend call of nature to the nearby lands, went in search of the victim and heard some sounds from the nearby canal and by focusing torch light, the informant noticed that two boys has pressed the victim inside the canal water; one was trying to force her face inside the water and another was pressing her legs. Hearing the shout of the informant, the two boys fled away from the spot. The informant rushed to the canal water and rescued the victim. He found the hands of the victim had been tied by means of a shirt towards the back and he untied her hands. The victim was sent back home with her mother. The informant chased the two boys but could not catch hold of them. After returning back home, the informant tried to ascertain about the incident from the victim. The victim narrated that in the night while she and her brother Raja after watching T.V. had slept in the room and the door was open, all on a sudden she realized that somebody was pressing her face and when she opened her eyes, she saw three unknown persons were carrying her. Those persons took her towards the nearby canal which was situated at a little distance from her house and thereafter removing her wearing apparels, they committed rape on her one after another. When the victim shouted, she was assaulted by those persons and thereafter they took a decision to finish the victim and accordingly took her towards the canal side and pressed her face in the canal water and at that time the informant reached there and she was rescued. 3. When the victim shouted, she was assaulted by those persons and thereafter they took a decision to finish the victim and accordingly took her towards the canal side and pressed her face in the canal water and at that time the informant reached there and she was rescued. 3. On the basis of such FIR lodged before the Inspector-in- Charge, Mahila Police Station, Rourkela, Rourkela Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2007 was registered on 20.04.2007 for the offences under sections 376(g/307) IPC against unknown persons. The IIC of Rourkela Mahila P.S. directed P.W. 10 Nita Modi, Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the case. During course of investigation, P.W. 10 examined the informant, the victim and her mother Mina and recorded their statements. She sent requisition to the Scientific Officer, DFSL, Rourkela to visit the spot for the purpose of investigation. The victim was sent for medical examination on police requisition. After arrival of the Scientific Officer, DFSL, Rourkela, P.W. 10 visited the spot with the victim along with the Scientific Officer and seized one pair of Hawai Chappal, one handkerchief, one blue colour panty (Chadi) near the canal located at Mishra Khattal, Sector-20, Rourkela under seizure list Ext 17 She also seized the wearing apparels of the victim being produced by her under seizure list Ext. 7. SHE CONDUCTED RAID AT the house of the accused persons but could not trace them out. She prepared the crime detail form vide Ext. 13 and also prepared spot map Ext. 14. She received the medical examination report of the victim and also seized her biological sample collected by the Medical Officer under seizure list Ext. 5. On 27.04.2007 P.W.10 arrested all the accused persons and seized their wearing apparels under Exts.15, 16 and 17. She sent the accused persons for their medical examination and received the injury report of appellant no. 2. On 28.04.2007, the appellants and the co-accused were forwarded to Court and a prayer was made by the I.O. before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh for conducting the T.I. Parade and accordingly T.I Parade was conducted on 03.05.2007 by P.W. 11 inside the Special Jail, Rourkela. P.W. 7 correctly identified both the appellants but failed to identify the co-accused Budhus Laguri. The I.O. also made query t6 the medical officer regarding the injury noticed on the person of appellant NO.2 and obtained the reply. P.W. 7 correctly identified both the appellants but failed to identify the co-accused Budhus Laguri. The I.O. also made query t6 the medical officer regarding the injury noticed on the person of appellant NO.2 and obtained the reply. A prayer was made before the S.D.J.M., Pan posh on 29.06.2007 to dispatch all the incriminating materials for chemical examination and accordingly those were forwarded to RFSL, Sambalpur. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants as well as co-accused Budhus Laguri. 4. The defence plea of the appellants was one of denial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. P. W. 1 is the victim and she narrated the entire prosecution case. P.W. 2 Kabita Rani Nayak was the IIC Mahila P.S., Rourkela who registered the case on the report of PW. 7 and directed PW.10 for investigation. P. W. 3 Prasant Kumar Pradhan was the Scientific Officer, DFSL, Rourkela who on police requisition visited the spot and found some articles which he handed over to the I.O. He also submitted his preliminary report vide Ext. 3. He did not find any incriminating substance over the articles seized from the spot. P.W.4 Dr. Sharmila Tripathy examined the victim on police requisition on 20.04.2007 and proved her report Ext. 1/1. According to the medical examination report, the age of the victim was in between 14 to 15 years and the doctor further opined that there was recent forcible sexual intercourse to the victim. P.W. 5 Smita Mahanty was the constable who stated about the seizure of the biological sample of the victim on 26.04.2007. P.W.6 Rehman Mahammod also stated about the seizure of sealed packets of biological sample on 16.05.2007 Exts.6. P.W. 7 Surya Bahadur is the father of the victim and he is the informant in the case. He identified the appellants in the T.I. Parade. P.W.8 Dr. Arun Prasad Bhoina examined the appellants and the co-accused Budhus Laguri on police requisition and proved his reports Exts.8, 9, 10 and 11. P.W. 9 Mina Bahadur is mother of the victim and she stated about the disclosure made by the victim before her about the occurrence. P.W. 10 Nalita Modi is the Investigating officer. P.W.11 Pravakar Ganthia was the J.M.F.C., Rourkela who conducted the Test Identification Parade at Special Jail, Rourkela on 03.05.2007 and proved her report vide Ext. 23. P.W. 9 Mina Bahadur is mother of the victim and she stated about the disclosure made by the victim before her about the occurrence. P.W. 10 Nalita Modi is the Investigating officer. P.W.11 Pravakar Ganthia was the J.M.F.C., Rourkela who conducted the Test Identification Parade at Special Jail, Rourkela on 03.05.2007 and proved her report vide Ext. 23. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The prosecution has proved twenty five documents. Ext. 1/1 is the Medical Examination report of the victim, Ext.2 is the FIR, Ext.3 is the preliminary report of scientific officer, DFSL, Rourkela, Ext.4 is the report of the Scientific Officer, Exts. 5, 6 and 7 are the seizure lists, Exts.8, 9 and 11 are the medical examination reports of the three accused persons and Ext. 10 is the opinion report of the doctor relating to examination of appellant No.2, Ext. 12 is seizure list, Ext. 13 is the spot map (victim's house) and Ext. 14 is another spot map (place of rape), Ext.19 is the query of the I.O regarding injuries on appellant No.2, Ext.20 is the query of the I.O. Ext. 21, is the prayer of the I.O. for chemical examination, Ext.22 is the forwarding memo to RFSL, Sambalpur, Ext.23 is the T.I. parade report and Ext. 24 and 25 are the chemical examiners reports. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Nilakantha Panda submitted that the statement of the victim and her parents do not inspire confidence and even though there are materials available on record that he two appellants were knowt o the victim and her father but the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. He further contended that the accused persons were arrested on 27.04.2007 and they were first produced at RGH before the doctor for their medical examination on the same day and on the next day they were produced in Court and therefore there was possibility on the part of P.W. 7 to see the appellants prior to the T.I. Parade. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and contended that since the victim has identified the appellant no. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and contended that since the victim has identified the appellant no. 1 in the Court and the informant has identified both the appellants in the T.I. parade, as well as in the court and there is no infirmity in the T.I. parade, their testimonies can be safely accepted to convict the appellants. He further contended that the co-accused who faced trial along with the appellants was acquitted as he was neither identified in the T.I. Parade not in the Court. 7. The victim who has been examined as P.W.1 was a minor at the time of occurrence in as much as according to her, she was born on 16.11.1995 and the incident took place on 19.04.2007. The victim has stated in her evidence that she knew the appellant no. 1 Jitu Lohar prior to the incident as the said appellant was residing at some distance from her house and that appellant is also locally known as "Khoka". She has further stated that when the boys entered inside the room, she was under complete sleep and they lifted her by gagging her mouth and inside the room, she could not identify the boys but after coming outside, she became conscious and could identify one boy among them. If the victim was aware about the identity of the appellant No. 1 prior to the incident as she has stated in her deposition that the house of the appellant no. 1 is at a little distance from her house and she was even aware the local call name of the appellant no. 1 as "Khoka", it was expected that in ordinary course of nature immediately after the occurrence she would have disclosed the name of the said appellant before her parents. Though in the FIR, it is mentioned that the victim narrated about the incident before the informant and P.W. 9, but it is not mentioned in the FIR that the victim has named appellant NO.1 before them and as such the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. The victim has not participated in the T.I. Parade which was conducted on 03.05.2007 inside the Special Jail, Rourkela. She has neither identified appellant NO.2 in Court not alleged anything against him. The victim has not participated in the T.I. Parade which was conducted on 03.05.2007 inside the Special Jail, Rourkela. She has neither identified appellant NO.2 in Court not alleged anything against him. The mother of the victim Mina Bahadur who has been examined as P.W. 9 has not identified the appellants in Court. She has also not participated in the T.I. Parade. When it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that both P.W.7 AND P.W.9 were searching for the deceased in the night and at that time on the focus of torch light of P.W.7, the two boys who had pressed the victim in the canal water fled away and the victim was sent back home with P.W.9, it was the duty of the prosecution to put P.W.1 as well as and P. W. 9 as identifying witnesses in the T.I. Parade for identification of the suspects. The same has not been done. So far as P.W. 7, the informant is concerned, though the informant has identified both the appellants in the T.I. parade and also in the Court, , but in his evidence he has stated that all the accused persons including the appellants were residing in the same Basti for which he knew them earlier. In spite of knowing the appellants before hand and alleged to have noticed them at the time of occurrence pressing the victim inside the water of the canal, he has not mentioned the names of the appellants in the FIR, Even he has not mentioned that any of the accused persons were of his Basti of that he knew them earlier. The absence of such important aspect in the FIR is relevant under section 11 of the evidence Act which creates doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. In the case of Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1975 SC 1026 , it is held that no doubt, as F.I.R is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, omissions of important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. F.I.R. in criminal case and particularly in a rape or murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence laid at trial. But, omissions of important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. F.I.R. in criminal case and particularly in a rape or murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence laid at trial. F.I.R is not the encyclopedia or be all and end all of the prosecution case. It is not a verbatim summary of the prosecution case. Whether non-mentioning of some material facts would be fatal or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In view of the materials available on record when the appellants were residing in the same Basti and were known to the informant P. W. 7 earlier and when the victim P.W.1 even knew appellant no. 1 prior to the incident and even his local call name as "Khoka", the omission of the names of the culprits in the F.I.R is very significant in the circumstances of the case. The F.I.R. was lodged almost six hours after the alleged incident and there must have been discussion in the family before lodging of the F.I.R. In fact P.W.7 has stated that during the night of occurrence, after returning to the house, he enquired about the incident from the victim and she narrated about the commission of forcible rape. The fact that the FIR is silent about the names or identity of the appellants in spite of the fact that the appellants were known persons and belonged to same Basti and residing at some distance from the house of the victim and no explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the prosecution in that respect, it is very difficult to accept the participation of the appellants in the alleged crime. In case of Mallanna and Ors. V. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (11) SCALE 194, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held "14. We now proceed to deal with the cases of the ten convicted persons individually, out of whom, Appasab [A-9], Chandappa [A15] and Rajasekhar [A-16] were not named in the FIR, although they were also know to the informant [P.W.1], for which no explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the prosecution. This being the position, on this ground alone, these there accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt". This being the position, on this ground alone, these there accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt". In case of Juwarsingh V. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1981 SC 373 , it is held as follows:- "6. In regard to the seven persons whose names were not mentioned in the First Information Report, P.W. 1 was unable to explain why she failed to mention their names in the report.... We think that these seven persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted. " Even though the allegations are very serious in nature and the medical opinion indicates that there was recent forcible sexual intercourse on the victim and the victim was also a minor but it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Though the case superficially viewed bears an ugly look so as to prima facie shock the conscience of any court yet suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof A moral conviction, however strong or genuine, cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law. It is well established rule of criminal justice that 'fouler the crime, higher the proof'. Court cannot allow emotional and sentimental feelings to come in to come into play in judicial pronouncements otherwise the Judge would bound to view the evidence with a bias resulting in biased conclusions which would cause great injustice. It seems that the learned trial Court has proceeded pedantically without making an in-depth analysis of facts and circumstances and the evidence led in the trial and the impugned verdict is based neither upon facts nor upon law but it is a sheer moral conviction. The prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences under of conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences under sections 376(2)(g), 307/34, 363/34 and 448/34 of IPC as assailed in this appeal is hereby set aside. . The appellants are in jail custody since the date of their arrest. They shall be set at liberty, if they are not required in any other case. Accordingly the JCRLA is allowed.