ORDER (CAV) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.07.2012 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.56/2009, by which, while convicting the accused/appellant u/s 376 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 08(eight) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 03(three) months. 2. Ext.1 is the FIR dated 12.07.2008 lodged with the Dibrugarh Police Station by the informant (PW-2), based on which Dibrugarh P.S Case No.321/2008 was registered u/s 417/376/506 IPC. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 26.06.2008, the accused/appellant aged about 34 years brought the informant’s daughter to his residence with a bad intention with the plea of his wife having called her for lunch. It was further alleged that after taking lunch, the accused/appellant in the absence of his wife, committed rape on his daughter and thereafter with the threat of killing her, took her to the hostel where she used to stay. According to the FIR, the victim was threatened not to disclose about the commission of rape. It was further stated in the FIR that the victim was a student of Class-XII (Science stream) aged about 17 years and because of the incident, she suffered both mentally and physically and consequently there was delay in lodging the FIR. 3. On receipt of the FIR, the police swung into action and in due course, on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellant u/s 417/376 IPC. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused/appellant u/s 376 IPC and the same was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During investigation, police also recorded the statement of the victim girl u/s 164 Cr.P.C. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 07(seven) witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. By order dated 14.12.2011, the learned trial Court directed for examining the mother of the victim girl as Court Witness (CW-1) u/s 311 Cr.P.C. She was examined on 04.07.2012. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused/appellant also examined his wife as DW-1. 5. By order dated 14.12.2011, the learned trial Court directed for examining the mother of the victim girl as Court Witness (CW-1) u/s 311 Cr.P.C. She was examined on 04.07.2012. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused/appellant also examined his wife as DW-1. 5. PW-1, in her deposition stated that the accused/appellant was known to her as he used to stay in the first floor of the house of which she was also a resident in the same floor. She stated in her evidence that the accused/appellant used to stay along with his wife. According to her, on 25.06.2008, the accused/appellant in absence of his wife, requested her for providing lunch and accordingly she provided him lunch and thereafter had gone out. She stated that at times, the accused/appellant used to request for lunch. She further stated that one day police came and asked for the accused/appellant and she pointed out the room, in which the accused/appellant used to stay. Police also asked her as to whether there was any incident, but she stated that she was not aware of any incident. In the cross examination, she stated that she was a tenant of the house for about 07(seven) years and that the accused/appellant was also a tenant for about one year. She knew him as a tenant of the same premise and that he was not in a relation of her. She denied the suggestion that while making statement before the police, she did not tell that the accused/appellant requested for lunch. She also denied that on 25.06.2008, the wife of the accused/appellant was along with him. 6. PW-2 is the informant and father of the victim girl, who in his deposition stated as to how his victim daughter used to stay at “Neelashri Hostel” situated at Chring Chapari. She was a student of Dibrugarh Girls Higher Secondary School, studying in 2nd year. On 26.06.2008 afternoon, one Ankita Borgohain (PW-5) telephoned him informing that the accused/appellant had taken the victim to his house and thereafter again kept her in the hostel and since then, she was crying and was not disclosing anything. She requested the PW-2 to come to the hostel. As it was raining, the PW-2 did not visit his victim daughter and visited her next day morning. She requested the PW-2 to come to the hostel. As it was raining, the PW-2 did not visit his victim daughter and visited her next day morning. On being asked, the victim told him that her uncle i.e. the accused/appellant had taken her to his house in the pretext of calling her for lunch by his wife. On reaching home, when she did not find his wife, she asked about her whereabouts and on being so asked, he told her that she had gone to market and would come. Thereafter, she took lunch and watched television and the accused/appellant came nearer to her and misbehaved with her. He further stated that she did not narrate anything more, but requested him to take her from the hostel. Coming back home, she narrated the incident of misbehavior to her mother. Later on, she also narrated the same to him. According to his testimony, the accused/appellant coming nearer to his victim daughter, bite her face and removed her wearing cloths and thereafter raped her. When she tried to shout, he gagged her mouth. After committing the crime, he threatened her that in case of divulging the incident, he would kill her. He also threatened her that she along with her father i.e. PW-2 would face dangerous consequences in case of divulging the incident to anyone. He further stated that when he came to know about the incident, he discussed the matter at home and thinking the future of his daughter, decided not to lodge any complaint. Thereafter, he tried to contact the accused/appellant to know the real fact, but the accused/appellant had already left for Tripura. The accused/appellant could not be contacted over phone. Considering the seriousness of the matter, he later on decided to lodge the FIR and accordingly on 12.07.2008, he filed the FIR (Ext.1). 7. During cross examination, he denied having any knowledge of lodging an FIR by the accused/appellant against him. He also denied that he knew about Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008 against him. He further denied that on 28.06.2008, he had called the accused/appellant over phone to Mohonbari, where he obtained his signatures on some papers under threat. He also denied that the motor cycle of the accused/appellant bearing registration No.AS-06F-2169 along with the Registration Certificate was snatched away from the accused/appellant and till the date of deposition, it was under his custody. He further denied that on 28.06.2008, he had called the accused/appellant over phone to Mohonbari, where he obtained his signatures on some papers under threat. He also denied that the motor cycle of the accused/appellant bearing registration No.AS-06F-2169 along with the Registration Certificate was snatched away from the accused/appellant and till the date of deposition, it was under his custody. He denied that the mobile phone of the accused/appellant was also snatched away by him and broke the same. He also denied that he demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from the accused/appellant under threat of killing him. 8. On being asked as to whether he knew any lady Advocate of Chabua, he denied the same. He also denied that the accused/appellant was beaten up at Mohonbari and then was taken to a lady Advocate of Chabua, where he was forced to sign on certain papers. He also denied that the lady Advocate suggested for some medicine for the accused and thereafter he was again taken to Mohonbari where he was tortured whole night. It was also denied that next day morning, the accused/appellant was taken to Milan Nagar on an Ambulance and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn through his ATM. He further denied the suggestion that the signatures of the accused/appellant were obtained on eight cheques (Ext.A, Ext.B, Ext.C, Ext.D, Ext.E, Ext.F, Ext.G and Ext.H). It was denied that because of the aforesaid Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008 registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the accused/appellant, he had filed the Ext.1 FIR dated 12.07.2008, which was registered as Dibrugarh P.S Case No.321/2008. 9. PW-3 in her deposition stated that the accused/appellant was in her house at Jiban Phukan Nagar in the first floor as tenant. On the day of incident, she could see a girl coming upstairs along with the accused/appellant. The said girl was earlier seen along with her family members visiting the residence of the accused/appellant. She stated that although the accused/appellant was married, but on the day of incident his wife was not at home. Later on, she came to know that the father of the victim girl had lodged a complaint against the accused/appellant, but she was not aware as to what for the complaint was lodged. She also stated that she was not aware about any incident. Later on, she came to know that the father of the victim girl had lodged a complaint against the accused/appellant, but she was not aware as to what for the complaint was lodged. She also stated that she was not aware about any incident. In cross examination, she stated that the wife of the accused had told her that she would go to her home, but was not aware as to how many days before the incident she had gone. 10. PW-4 is the victim girl, who in her deposition stated that she was an inhabitant of “Neelashri Private Hostel” and used to study in Dibrugarh Girls Higher Secondary School. On 26th June, the accused/appellant told her that his wife had invited her for lunch. Accordingly, she visited his residence at about 2.30 p.m.. Visiting his house, she could see that his wife was not at home. On being asked, the accused/appellant told her that she had gone out. Thereafter, she was offered lunch and she took the same. According to her, she was watching television even from before taking lunch. After the lunch also she was engaged in watching television sitting on the bed. Thereafter, the accused/appellant forcefully opened her zip of the Jean Pant, she was wearing. Although she raised objection, but the accused/appellant gagged her mouth and thereafter committed rape on her. After committing the offence, he asked her not to divulge the same to anyone. She cried loudly and requested the accused/appellant to drop her in her hostel. Accordingly, the accused/appellant dropped her in the hostel on his motorcycle. She further stated that she did not tell the detail incident to her hostel mate (PW-5). Next day morning, she reported the incident to her father PW-2. Going back home, she narrated the entire incident to her mother (CW-1). In the cross examination, she admitted that she used to visit the accused/appellant and on the day of the incident also she visited his house on being informed that his wife had invited her for lunch. She stated that she had gone to the residence of the accused/appellant on a rickshaw. She admitted that there were other tenants along with the accused/appellant in the house. On being asked, she denied her knowledge about Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008. She also denied the suggestion that false FIR was lodged as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the accused/appellant. She admitted that there were other tenants along with the accused/appellant in the house. On being asked, she denied her knowledge about Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008. She also denied the suggestion that false FIR was lodged as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the accused/appellant. 11. In her statement made u/s 164 Cr.P.C on 14.07.2008, the victim girl stated that the accused/appellant visited her hostel and told her that his wife had invited her for lunch. Thereafter, she visited the residence of the accused/appellant on a rickshaw. When she found that wife of the accused/appellant was not at home, she asked about the same and the accused/appellant informed her that his wife had gone out and would come. She was offered lunch and after taking lunch, she was watching television. Thereafter he closed the doors and grabbed her. She shouted, but the accused/appellant removed her Jean Pant and committed rape on her for about ½ an hours. She suffered pain. Thereafter, the accused threatened her not to divulge the incident to anyone or else the consequence thereof would be bad for her and her father. Thereafter, he dropped her in the hostel. Reaching hostel, she narrated the incident to her hostel mate (PW-5). Next day morning, she narrated the incident to her father (PW-2). Thereafter, she was taken back home by her father. 12. PW-5 is the hostel mate of the victim girl, who in her deposition stated the same thing as that of PW-2. According to her, coming back to the hostel, the victim was found upset and on being asked the reason therefor, she cried and told her that the accused/appellant misbehaved with her. Significantly she in her deposition further stated that the police did not obtain her statement. 13. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer, who in his deposition stated about the investigation that was carried out. During investigation, he examined the victim as well as other witnesses and also visited the place of occurrence. The victim was also sent for medical examination. On completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellant u/s 417/376 IPC. Through his cross examination, the defence brought on record the fact of filing of FIR by the appellant on the basis of which Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008 was registered against the father of the victim. 14. PW-7 is the doctor who medically examined the victim girl on 13.07.2008. Through his cross examination, the defence brought on record the fact of filing of FIR by the appellant on the basis of which Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008 was registered against the father of the victim. 14. PW-7 is the doctor who medically examined the victim girl on 13.07.2008. He opined that the age of the victim girl was above 18 years and below 20 years. There was no mark of any recent sexual intercourse. However, he opined that the victim was used to sex. No injury mark was detected on her person. He exhibited the medical examination report as Ext.1. 15. As noted above, the mother of the victim girl was also examined by the Court as Court Witness (CW-1). She in her deposition stated that on 26.07.2009, her daughter was called by the accused/appellant over phone and told her that his wife had invited her for lunch. Accordingly her daughter went to the residence of the accused. Reaching there, her daughter could discover that the wife of the accused was not at home. She further stated that the accused raped her daughter in his rented house and thereafter threatened her that he would kill her if she would tell anyone regarding the incident. According to her, the victim narrated the incident to her. In the cross examination, she denied the suggestion that before the accused/appellant got married, a proposal was made to the accused/appellant to marry the victim girl. Deviating from her stand in the examination-in-chief that the incident occurred on 26.07.2009, in her cross examination she stated that the incident occurred on 26.06.2009 and the FIR was lodged on 12.07.2009. She also stated that she was not aware about filing of the FIR by the accused/appellant prior to filing of the FIR in the instant case. She also denied that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the accused/appellant, charge sheet was submitted against her husband and his associates. She also stated that she was not aware about the anticipatory bail, prayed for by her husband (PW-2) vide AB No.662/2011 in the Gauhati High Court, which was disposed of on 29.03.2011. She admitted that during investigation, she was not examined by the police. 16. She also stated that she was not aware about the anticipatory bail, prayed for by her husband (PW-2) vide AB No.662/2011 in the Gauhati High Court, which was disposed of on 29.03.2011. She admitted that during investigation, she was not examined by the police. 16. When the accused/appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C, answering the question that because of the absence of his wife, he had requested for providing lunch to him, he stated that although his wife was supposed to go to Guwahati, but because of her illness, she could not go. Therefore, it was not correct to say that PW-1 had offered meal. On being referred to the evidence of PW-5, he answered that the victim had come to his residence and after lunch he dropped her in her hostel. He was categorical in his statement that his wife was present along with him on the day of incident and that the victim had come to his house on a rickshaw. He also answered that all three i.e. the accused/appellant, the victim girl and his wife took lunch together. He also denied the commission of any offence. As regards dropping the victim girl in her hostel, his answer was that the victim girl had requested him to drop her in the hostel. As regards the question in reference to PW-3’s statement that the victim girl was seen going upstairs along with him, he stated that when the victim came on a rickshaw and got down, he was downstairs to take betel nut. 17. When the accused/appellant was asked as to whether he had anything to say of his own, he narrated the alleged incident as to how the father of the victim girl along with his associates tortured him and demanded Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) with the plea of committing sexual offence on the victim girl. He also stated that his mobile phone, money bag, ATM Card etc were snatched away. His further statement was that his signatures were obtained on some blank cheques and also got executed an undertaking of selling his motorcycle at Rs.30,000/-. He also stated as to how he was taken to a Lady Advocate where his signatures were obtained on blank papers. According to him, he was offered medicine by the lady Advocate. He even identified the lady Advocate as Malabika Kar. He also stated as to how he was taken to a Lady Advocate where his signatures were obtained on blank papers. According to him, he was offered medicine by the lady Advocate. He even identified the lady Advocate as Malabika Kar. Thereafter, he was taken to the firm house where he was tortured. Next day morning, he was taken to his residence and an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) was withdrawn through his ATM. He specifically stated that his wife was very much available along with him on the day of incident. Thus, in a nutshell, his version of the incident was that no such incident had occurred and it was PW-2 who along with his associates tortured him and forcefully obtained his signatures on blank papers and also on cheque leafs. 18. DW-1 is the wife of the accused/appellant, who in her deposition stated that she was very much available along with her husband on the day of the alleged incident i.e. on 26.06.2008. Although she was supposed to go to Guwahati, but she did not go because of ailment. She admitted that the victim girl had visited their residence on a rickshaw and met her husband down stairs when he had gone for purchasing betel nut. Both of them came together to the first floor. Thereafter, she entered her room and engaged herself in watching television. Thereafter, all three took lunch, after which she engaged in gossiping with her. Since it was evening hours, she asked her husband to drop the alleged victim in the hostel and accordingly he did. She further stated that she left for Guwahati on 27.06.2008 and on 28.06.2008 when she tried to contact the accused/appellant over phone, she failed. Then on 29.06.2008, she telephoned her land lady who in turn informed that accused/appellant was not seen and so also his motorcycle. Later on, the accused/appellant telephoned her and informed about the incident narrated in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Referring to the injuries purportedly sustained by her husband, she stated that the accused/appellant came to his home town at Mangaldoi where he took treatment. Thereafter, both of them decided to lodge the FIR and accordingly the FIR was lodged on the basis of which Dibrugarh PS case No.320/2008 was registered. According to her, the PW-2 i.e. the father of the victim girl lodged the FIR falsely. Thereafter, both of them decided to lodge the FIR and accordingly the FIR was lodged on the basis of which Dibrugarh PS case No.320/2008 was registered. According to her, the PW-2 i.e. the father of the victim girl lodged the FIR falsely. She was thoroughly cross examined and was also put to certain suggestion. However, nothing contradictory could be brought out. She denied the suggestion that the incident referred to in Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008 and also her testimony was false. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court having convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid, he has preferred this appeal. 20. It will be pertinent to mention here that the accused/appellant was granted bail vide order dated 19.09.2012 passed in Criminal MC No.775/2012. It will also be pertinent to mention here that Dibrugarh PS Case No.320/2008 registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the accused/appellant on 08.07.2008 corresponding to GR Case No.1245/2008 is at the trial stage. 21. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel representing the accused/appellant referring to the aforesaid evidence on record submitted that in view of the inherent and apparent contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses coupled with the stand of the defence as reflected in the statement made u/s 313 Cr.P.C and also in the deposition of DW-1, the prosecution case is highly improbable and the learned trial Court committed manifest error of law as well as of fact in convicting the accused/appellant vide the impugned judgment. He has placed reliance on certain decisions which are:- (i) AIR 1957 SC 637 [Harbans Singh Bhan Singh –vs- The State of Punjab]; (ii) (2003) 12 SCC 377 [Mousam Singha Roy and others –vs- The State of West Bengal]; (iii) AIR 1977 SC 170 [Rabindra Kumar Dey –vs- The State of Orissa]; (iv) (1974) 4 SCC 300 [Hallu and others –vs- The State of Madhya Pradesh]; (v) (1971) 3 SCC 235 [Des Raj –vs- The State of Punjab]; (vi) (1981) 2 SCC 166 [Dudh Nath Pandey –vs- The State of Uttar Pradesh]; (vii) (1973) 2 SCC 808 [Kali Ram –vs- The State of Himachal Pradesh]; (viii) 1974 Cri.L.J.82 [Sitaram –vs- The State of Maharastra]; (ix) AIR 1953 SC 415 [Mohinder Singh –vs State] and (x) (1974) 3 SCC 397 [Harchand Singh –vs- The State of Haryana]. 22. 22. The aforesaid decisions have been pressed into service to emphasis on the principles involved in criminal jurisprudence that:- (a) There should be legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence to prove that the prosecution story “must be true” rather than “may be true”; (b) It is a settled principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that more serious the offence, stricter is the degree of proof; (c) Standard of proof in a criminal case: burden is always on the prosecution and the same never shifts. Prosecution can never derive any benefit from the weakness of the defence version; (d) Holding a witness “implicitly reliable” leads to denial of judicial consideration of the infirmities in evidence; (e) Defence witnesses cannot be disbelieved by relying on conjectures and surmises: they are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution; (f) If two views are possible in a criminal case, the view favourable to the accused should be accepted; (g) The averment/allegation with respect to the commission of rape has got to be clear and specific for basing a finding of guilt rather than being just inferential. The evidence/averments/allegations must fulfill the ingredients of offence of RAPE as defined under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code; (h) The prosecution must prove the case in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. It is elementary where the prosecution has a definite and positive case, it must prove the whole of that case; (i) In a case the prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the Court would be left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such situation. 23. Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam on the other hand submitted that the victim girl herself having stated about the commission of the offence by the accused/appellant duly corroborating her statement made u/s 164 Cr.P.C, the purported contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses are of no help to the case of the accused/appellant. According to him, on a overall consideration of the evidence on record, it is well established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant had committed the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC. 24. According to him, on a overall consideration of the evidence on record, it is well established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant had committed the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC. 24. I have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record. My findings and conclusions are as follows. 25. While in the FIR, lodged by PW-2, it was stated that the accused/appellant himself brought the victim girl from the hostel, but as per the testimony of the victim girl (PW-4), she herself had gone to the residence of the accused/appellant. But in her cross examination, she stated that she had gone to the residence of the accused/appellant on a rickshaw. Similarly, in her statement made u/s 164 Cr.P.C, she stated that she was invited for lunch by the accused/appellant visiting her hostel. Thereafter, she came to the residence of the accused on a rickshaw. Similarly, PW-5 her hostel mate, in her deposition, stated that on 26.06.2008, when she came back from her classes to hostel, she was informed by the victim at around 2.30 p.m that she would visit the residence of the accused/appellant. She never stated that the victim had gone out along with the accused/appellant. Significantly, CW-1 i.e. the mother of the victim girl, before whom the victim allegedly narrated the entire incident, stated in her deposition that her daughter was called by the accused/appellant over phone on 26.07.2009 informing her that his wife had invited her for lunch. She further stated that upon such invitation, she visited the residence of the accused/appellant. Although as per the FIR, the incident occurred on 26.06.2008, but as per the testimony of CW-1, the incident occurred on 26.07.2009. Again in her cross examination, she stated that the incident occurred on 26.06.2009. 26. In view of the above contradictions, it is really not discernible as to whether the victim girl was brought from the hostel by the accused/appellant in the pretext of his wife inviting her for lunch or the victim herself went to him on a rickshaw. Contrary to the testimony of PW-2 and the victim girl, CW-1 categorically stated that her daughter was invited by the accused/appellant over phone. It is in this context, Mr. Contrary to the testimony of PW-2 and the victim girl, CW-1 categorically stated that her daughter was invited by the accused/appellant over phone. It is in this context, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel referring to the aforesaid decisions submitted that it will be too dangerous to convict the accused/appellant with such contradictions. According to him, the whole story is a concocted one. 27. PW-1 who was another tenant in the same floor in which the accused/appellant was a tenant, in her deposition stated that on 25.06.2008 and not 26.06.2008 the accused/appellant requested for meal and accordingly she offered him. She in her deposition never stated that the victim girl had visited the accused/appellant. PW-2 in his deposition stated that his daughter did not divulge him the incident in details and she divulged the same to her mother only. It was only thereafter he was also informed of the incident in details. This statement of PW-2 when tested in reference to the statement of the victim girl made u/s 164 Cr.P.C, inherent contradictions are discernible. In her said statement, narrating the alleged incident she stated that she narrated the entire incident to her hostel mate (PW-5) and also to her father (PW-2) and it was thereafter he (PW-2) took her to home. Similarly, PW-5 in her deposition stated that the victim girl was upset, but did not divulge about the incident to her, but only stated that the accused/appellant misbehaved with her. Contrary to such evidence of PW-5, the victim in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C categorically stated that she narrated the entire incident to her said room-mate. 28. Although PW-2 explained the delay in filing the FIR in reference to alleged mental and physical suffering of his daughter because of the incident, but in his deposition during trial, he stated that a decision was taken not to lodge the FIR considering the future of his daughter. However, later on, he formed an opinion that it would be unwise not to report such a big incident to the police and accordingly lodged the FIR on 12.07.2008. He had deposed in the trial on 20.08.2009. Although he was aware of his accusation by the accused/appellant in Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008, but he denied having any knowledge of the same. He had deposed in the trial on 20.08.2009. Although he was aware of his accusation by the accused/appellant in Dibrugarh P.S Case No.320/2008, but he denied having any knowledge of the same. Similarly CW-1 also showed ignorance about the existence of any such case and also obtaining bail by her husband (PW-2) in the said case from Gauhati High Court. PW-4 i.e. the victim girl also in her deposition on being asked about the Dibrugarh PS Case No.320/2008, denied her knowledge about the said case. Although PW-1 in his deposition stated that the accused/appellant bite her face and also removed her cloths, but the alleged victim neither in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C nor in her deposition during trial stated anything of the sort, but only stated that the zip of her Jean Pant was forcefully opened by the accused/appellant. Although she allegedly narrated the incident to her mother, CW-1, but she also in her deposition simply stated that her daughter was raped by the accused/appellant and the incident occurred on 26.07.2009. 29. According to PW-4, when the incident occurred, she cried loudly, but significantly nobody heard such cry. It is in the evidence that there were other tenants in the house and in case of raising any hue and cry by the victim girl, that too loudly, the other inmates/tenants would have heard and come to her rescue. PW-1 in her testimony although stated that the accused/appellant requested her to provide meal, but she did not state that the victim had visited the accused/appellant. PW-3 is the land lady, who in her deposition stated about visit of the victim girl to the house of the accused/appellant. She allegedly saw her going upstairs along with the accused/appellant. She also did not hear anything. In the normal circumstances, a girl crying loudly would have been heard by her and other inmates. 30. Although the PW-4 was allegedly raped by the accused/appellant against her will, but significantly she again went to her hostel along with the accused/appellant on his motorcycle. According to her testimony, when she cried loudly, the accused/appellant dropped her in the hostel on his motorcycle. In the normal circumstances, unless there is compelling circumstances, a victim of such incident would have urged the other inmates to drop her or at least would not have gone back to her hostel along with the perpetrator on his motorcycle. According to her testimony, when she cried loudly, the accused/appellant dropped her in the hostel on his motorcycle. In the normal circumstances, unless there is compelling circumstances, a victim of such incident would have urged the other inmates to drop her or at least would not have gone back to her hostel along with the perpetrator on his motorcycle. As per the evidence of PW-7 i.e. the doctor, who conducted the medical examination on the person of the victim girl, she was above 18 years and below 20 years of age. Evidence of recent sexual intercourse although was not detected, however, she was used to sex. 31. Above contradictions when tested in the touchstone of the defence evidence, coupled with the statement of the accused/appellant made u/s 313 Cr.P.C, what has emerged is that prior to lodging of the FIR by the PW-2 alleging sexual assault on his daughter, it was the accused/appellant who had lodged the FIR on the basis of which Dibrugarh PS Case No.320/2008 was registered. According to the defence, it is because of such lodging of the FIR, the PW-2 also lodged the FIR subsequently. The trial in respect of the FIR lodged by the accused/appellant is still pending. In the said case, the PW-2 had to take bail approaching this Court. The accused/appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C and so also his wife (DW-1), categorically stated about the assault on the accused/appellant by PW-2 and his associates on 28.06.2008. 32. The provisions for explaining the circumstances appearing against the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is not an empty formality. It is based on the basic principles of natural justice. 33. As has been held by the Apex Court in Nar Singh –vs- State of Haryana, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496, the object of Section 313 (1)(b) CrPC is to bring the substance of accusation to the accused to enable the accused to explain each and every circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. The provisions of this section are mandatory and cast a duty on the court to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against him. The examination of the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) CrPC is not a mere formality. The provisions of this section are mandatory and cast a duty on the court to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against him. The examination of the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) CrPC is not a mere formality. Section 313 CrPC prescribes a procedural safeguard for an accused, giving him an opportunity to explain the facts and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and this opportunity is valuable from the standpoint of the accused. The real importance of Section 313 CrPC lies in that, it imposes a duty on the court to question the accused properly and fairly so as to bring home to him the exact case he will have to meet and thereby, an opportunity is given to him to explain any such point. 34. In Paramjeet Singh –vs- State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 439 , the Apex Court held thus:- “22. Section 313 CrPC is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. The attention of the accused must specifically be brought to inculpatory pieces of evidence to give him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. Therefore, the court is under a legal obligation to put the incriminating circumstances before the accused and solicit his response. This provision is mandatory in nature and casts and imperative duty on the court and confers a corresponding right on the accused to have an opportunity to offer an explanation for such incriminatory material appearing against him. Circumstances which were not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration. 35. In Basavaraj R. Patil –vs- State of Karnataka, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 740 , the Apex Court held thus:- “18. What is the object of examination of an accused under Section 313 of the Code? The section itself declares the object in explicit language that it is ‘for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him’. In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 612 , Gajendragadkar, J (as he then was) speaking for a three-Judge Bench has focused on the ultimate test in determining whether the provision has been fairly complied with. In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 612 , Gajendragadkar, J (as he then was) speaking for a three-Judge Bench has focused on the ultimate test in determining whether the provision has been fairly complied with. He observed thus:- ’21……… The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under Section 342 would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious infirmity.’ 19. Thus it is well settled that the provision is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as its corollary to benefit the court in reaching the final conclusion. 20. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the provision is not intended to nail him to any position, but to comply with the most salutary principle of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alteram partem. The worm ‘may’ in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in Section 313 of the Code indicates, without any doubt, that even if the court does not put any question under that clause the accused cannot raise any grievance for it. But if the court fails to put the needed question under clause (b) of the sub-section it would result in a handicap to the accused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence, without affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used against him. It is now well settled that a circumstance about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him.” 36. In Rabindra Kumar Dey (supra), the Apex Court observed that it is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the explanation furnished by the accused is absolutely false. As to what is the explanation furnished by the accused/appellant has been noted above. In a criminal trial, it is not at all obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence. It was not for the accused/appellant to prove the prosecution case. It was for the prosecution to prove affirmatively about the commission of the offence by the accused/appellant. In a criminal trial, it is not at all obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence. It was not for the accused/appellant to prove the prosecution case. It was for the prosecution to prove affirmatively about the commission of the offence by the accused/appellant. Such proof, cannot be said to be fully established, more particularly when the accused/appellant has given a reasonable explanation. It will be unsafe to draw an adverse inference against him. 37. As could be noticed, the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment of conviction has disbelieved the evidence of defence witness on pure conjectures and surmises. When the contradictions noted in the evidence of PWs are tested in the touch stone of the defence evidence and the explanation furnished, serious suspicion regarding commission of the offence by the accused/appellant arises and the accused/appellant cannot be convicted on mere suspicion. 38. As has been held in Dudh Nath Pandey (Supra), the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and the courts ought to overcome their traditional instinctive disbelieve in defence witnesses. Keeping in mind this principle relating to testimony of defence witness, the evidence adduced by the DWs and when nothing contradictory could be extracted in the cross examination, cannot be burst aside. 39. Coupled with the above position of law, DW-1 in her statement categorically stated that she was very much present along with the accused/appellant on the day of the alleged incident. According to her, although she was supposed to go to Guwahati on 26.06.2008, but because of her illness, she stayed back and it was only on the next date i.e. 27.06.2006 she went to Guwahati. She also narrated the incident in which the accused/appellant was allegedly tortured by the PW-2 and his associates and also as to how his signatures were obtained in blank papers and cheque leafs including the undertaking that he had sold his motorcycle to PW-2 for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand). Although the DW-1 was thoroughly cross examined by the prosecution, but nothing contradictory could be brought out. Only certain suggestions were made that her testimony was not correct and she categorically denied all the suggestions. 40. Although the DW-1 was thoroughly cross examined by the prosecution, but nothing contradictory could be brought out. Only certain suggestions were made that her testimony was not correct and she categorically denied all the suggestions. 40. In Harbans Singh Bhan Singh (Supra), there is inevitable long distance to travel between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and whole of the distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. It was argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam that there is an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused/appellant. But the moot question is, whether the said element of truth is founded on legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. From the evidence discussed above, there is also an element of doubt and if that be so, the suspicion howsoever may be grave cannot lead to conviction of the accused/appellant. 41. As has been held in Mousam Singha Roy and others (supra), it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter is the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. 42. As has been held in Hallu & others (Supra), it is always advisable to test the evidence of the witnesses on the anvil of objective circumstances in the case. 43. The decision in Kali Ram (Supra) has been pressed into service to buttress the argument that even if the materials brought on record by the prosecution are said to be pointer to the guilt of the accused, but in absence of the same being positively proved to be true, the accused/appellant would be entitled to acquittal. Another golden thread that was discussed in the judgment in respect of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused, sould be adopted. If on the basis of the evidence on record, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. 44. If on the basis of the evidence on record, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. 44. In Harchand Singh (supra), the Apex Court reminding the function of a Court in a criminal trial observed thus:- “The function of the Court in a criminal trial is to find whether the person arraigned before it as the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For this purpose the Court scans the material on record to find whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidence upon the basis of which it is possible to found the conviction of the accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. If in a case the prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the Court would be left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation.” 45. In Alamelu –vs- State, represented by Inspector of Police, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 385 , the Apex Court was inclined to set aside the conviction based on concurrent findings for the offence u/s 366/376 IPC r/w Section 109 IPC. As in the instant case, in the said case also there was no protest and/or raising an alarm on the part of the prosecutrix, who alleged abduction and rape on her. Noticing the fact that the girl had opportunities to complain or to run away, but she made no such effort, the Apex Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the offence by the appellant. In the said case, the High Court had concluded that the girl had not willingly gone with the accused/appellant. Reversing the said finding, it was held by the Apex Court that such conclusion could only be recorded by ignoring the entire evidence with regard to the conduct of the girl. 46. As noticed above, although the victim allegedly had shouted, but the other inmates of the residential premises did not hear anything. Reversing the said finding, it was held by the Apex Court that such conclusion could only be recorded by ignoring the entire evidence with regard to the conduct of the girl. 46. As noticed above, although the victim allegedly had shouted, but the other inmates of the residential premises did not hear anything. She had enough opportunity to lodge complaint immediately thereafter, but instead, took the route to her hostel riding on the motorcycle of the accused/appellant. In such a situation, it will be totally unsafe to convict the accused/appellant. In my considered opinion, he is entitled to benefit of doubt. 47. For all the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.56/2009. Bail bond stands discharged. 48. Registry shall send down the case record along with a copy of this judgment and order to the learned trial Court.