JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-State has laid this leave to appeal under Section 378(iii) and (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') to assail the judgment dated 13.05.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh (for short 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC by extending benefit of doubt. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.11.2011, P.W.5 Kalu filed a complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun against accused-respondent and five others that they attacked on him and his daughter on 23.10.2011 when they were in their agricultural field. As per averments, at the time of incident all the accused person were armed with lathies, sword and axe and after arriving on the agricultural field they started beating him. On intervening by his wife, she was also given beatings. Finally the accused persons forceably taken away his minor daughter aged 14 years with them and confined her in a room for compelling her to marry accused-respondent. In the complaint, besides the allegation of abduction, apprehension was also shown by the complainant that his minor daughter might be sexually exploited by the accused-respondent. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to Police Station, Begun under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and thereupon case No.358/2011 for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 323 and 341 IPC was registered. After investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against the accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate, thereafter, committed the case to learned trial Court as it was a Sessions Case triable by the Court of Sessions. 3. Learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on the charge, framed charges against accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences. For proving accusation against accused-respondent, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. After recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court accepted the documentary evidence on behalf of accused respondent. In defence, no oral evidence was tendered by the accused-respondent. Learned trial Court, thereafter, proceeded for final arguments and by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused by extending benefit of doubt. In order to unearth truth about the complaint, the learned trial Court examined the entire prosecution case threadbare in conjunction with the evidence tendered by prosecution. In defence, no oral evidence was tendered by the accused-respondent. Learned trial Court, thereafter, proceeded for final arguments and by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused by extending benefit of doubt. In order to unearth truth about the complaint, the learned trial Court examined the entire prosecution case threadbare in conjunction with the evidence tendered by prosecution. Learned trial Court framed a point of determination as to whether accused-respondent forceably abducted prosecutrix Ms. 'I' from the custody of her natural guardian father and forced her to establish sexual relation with him and this sort of act and omission amounts to commission of rape. 4. Learned trial Court made sincere endeavour to critically analyse the evidence of the parents of prosecutrix P.W.5 and P.W.6 so also threadbare examined the testimony of P.W.7 Premchand and P.W.8 Galiya. In order to ascertain the actual age of the prosecutrix, learned trial Court has also examined the statement of P.W.14 Dr. Prathiba Sanadya, and relying on her testimony has recorded a finding of fact that age of the prosecutrix was in between 18 to 20 years. As regards abduction of the prosecutrix, learned trial Court has also critically examined variance in the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition before the Court. Learned trial Court has also noticed a very vital fact that as per complainant himself the incident took place on 23.10.2011 and complaint before the learned Magistrate at his behest was submitted after almost a month and in between 09.11.2011 he submitted an application before ADM, Begun wherein he very candidly admitted that the prosecutrix had gone with the accused-respondent. Apart from inordinate delay in filing the complaint and serious inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court has also placed heavy reliance on the medical evidence so as to extend benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent. 5. I have the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 6. After perusing the impugned judgment threadbare, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court has rightly analysed the entire prosecution evidence for recording its finding on the point of determination. 5. I have the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 6. After perusing the impugned judgment threadbare, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court has rightly analysed the entire prosecution evidence for recording its finding on the point of determination. Learned trial Court, with a view to unearth the truth has also taken note of serious discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix and her version during her deposition under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It goes without saying that defence can very well utilise serious discrepancies in two statements, and the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be utilised by accused for proving contradictions. That apart, learned trial Court has also rightly taken note of inordinate delay in filing the complaint from the date of occurrence of incident, which is admittedly laid after a lapse of almost a month. One more redeeming feature of this case is that before filing complaint, P.W.5 complainant himself has submitted Exhibit D/1 before the SDM, Begun on 09.11.2011 whereupon statements of prosecutrix Ex.D/6 were recorded. Before S.D.M. prosecutrix admitted in her deposition that she had gone with the accused. Even from that application, the complaint is filed after a lapse of 12 days, which further goes to show that the allegation in the complaint are nothing but an embellished version of the complainant and a clear case of afterthought. If the prosecution evidence is examined in conjunction with the medical evidence, then too it would reveal that at the time of incident prosecutrix was not minor and was about 18 to 20 years of age. The statement of P.W.14 Dr. Prathibha Sanadya is very much relevant in this behalf wherein she has opined that prosecutrix was major and on gynecological examination, she is fully satisfied about her maturity. It is also noticed by the learned trial Court that the report which was submitted by the Public Prosecutor with the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. nowhere indicates that semen stains were found on the clothes of prosecutrix. In that background, learned trial Court, in my considered opinion, has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence and arriving at the conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove accusation beyond all reasonable doubts. In that background, learned trial Court, in my considered opinion, has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence and arriving at the conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove accusation beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned trial Court, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, has also rightly pressed into service the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that it is the duty of prosecution to prove accusation beyond all reasonable doubts and in the event of any doubt it is unsafe to record finding of guilt against the accused. Therefore, I am unable to find any perversity or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. 7. Thus, in totality, I fully concur with the findings of the learned trial Court and there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. Consequently, leave craved for is declined and resultantly, appeal is dismissed.