JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 03.12.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 18/7 of 2010, whereby, it acquitted the accused/respondents for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that the law enforcing machinery was set out in motion in this case pursuant to the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr.P.C. stating that she is running a Beauty Parlor under the name and style of Mona Beauty Parlor and the Karyana shop of accused Saurabh Mehta alias Rauni is situated near the Beauty Parlor due to which she is having talking terms with Rauni. On 03.01.2010, she received a telephonic call from Rauni informing that today is his birthday and he has arranged a party at Pin Valley Hotel, as such, she accompanied Rauni in his Wagnor-R to Hotel Pin Vally at about 3.00 p.m. Both of them were in the vehicle. At Pin Valley Hotel Rauni offered a cup of coffee to her. But, no party was organized there. Thereafter, she was brought to room and he requested to have sexual intercourse with him. But, she refused. Accused Saurabh Mehta promised to marry her. Thereafter, he committed sexual intercourse with her. After 15 minutes Rauni left the room and when she was coming out of the room she noticed that from bathroom of the said room, Ajay Soni alias Aju who is running a Mobile shop at Gurudwara chowk, Bilaspur came out and she inquired from him as to how he came here but Aju did not reply. She asked him as to how whether they are blackmailing her. She received a telephonic call from Shankey bhaiya who is running computer shop at Daira sector informing her that he has seen her obscene video clip with Rauni on the mobile of a boy. Rauni committed rape with her by making a false promise to marry her after conspiring with Aju and prepared her obscene video clip and blackmailed her. On the basis of aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, the FIR was registered in the police station concerned against the accused. The police started investigations in the matter. Rauni committed rape with her by making a false promise to marry her after conspiring with Aju and prepared her obscene video clip and blackmailed her. On the basis of aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, the FIR was registered in the police station concerned against the accused. The police started investigations in the matter. During the course of investigations, the police completed all the codal formalities and arrested the accused. Report of the FSL was procured. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. The accused were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 120-B of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents herein. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The prosecutrix alleged in her statement recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., comprised in Ex.PW2/A of accused Saurabh Mehta alias Rauni under a false allurement of marriage eliciting her consent for holding her to sexual intercourse. She alleges therein of her consent to the accused for his holding her to sexual intercourse when emanated from a false pretentious allurement of marriage, it holds no legal worth. Also, she alleges therein of the penal sexual misdemeanors perpetrated on her person by the accused rendering him liable for punishment. The relevant evidence which is enjoined to be delved into for disinterring therefrom the germane trite factum of the accused holding a false promise to marry her stands embedded in the testification of the prosecutrix. She in her testification makes a loud echoing therein of hers on 3.1.2010 on receiving a telephonic call from accused Saurabh Mehta, whereby he intimated her qua his birthday falling on the day aforesaid also requested her to join him at a party at Pin Valley Hotel, request whereof stood acceded to by her leading her to in the Wagnor-R of accused Saurabh Mehta accompany him to Pin Valley Hotel. On their arrival at 3.00 p.m. at the place aforesaid, whereat after theirs sipping coffee, they proceeded to room No. 703 of the Hotel, wherein she testifies of the accused requesting her to sexually access her, request whereof initially stood refused by her, whereafter accused Saurabh Mehta stands testified by her to promise to marry her leading her to succumb to his sexual misdemeanor. She proceeds to testify of on 15 minutes elapsing since her departure from room No. 703 of Pin Valley Hotel, hers noticing the factum of co-accused Ajay Soni egressing from the bath room attached to room No. 703 wherefrom whom she inquired the reason of his occupying the bathroom, endeavour whereof did not evince any satisfactory reply from co-accused Ajay rather his maintaining silence. On 3.3.2010, she received a telephonic call from Shankey alias Akshay apprising her qua his sighting on the mobile of a boy her obscene video clippings with accused Saurabh Mehta, whereupon she lodged the FIR qua the occurrence of 3.1.2010 on 3.3.2010. On 3.3.2010, she received a telephonic call from Shankey alias Akshay apprising her qua his sighting on the mobile of a boy her obscene video clippings with accused Saurabh Mehta, whereupon she lodged the FIR qua the occurrence of 3.1.2010 on 3.3.2010. Since a hiatus of two months has apparently occurred since the alleged incident of 3.1.2010, factum aforesaid is per se a visible display of the prosecutrix concocting the factum of hers succumbing to the sexual overtures of the accused on the accused holding a false allurement of marrying her. She has not made any loud echoings in her testification of the accused despite holding her to sexual intercourse on 3.1.2010 under his holding a false allurement of marriage to her, his thereafter on her beseechings upon him to marry her, his making a refusal. The absence of the aforesaid echoings in her testification renders waned the ascription by her in the FIR of hers succumbing to the sexual overtures of the accused on the latter holding a false allurement of marrying her, contrarily, the occurrence in her testification qua hers proceeding to lodge an FIR qua the occurrence which allegedly took place on 3.1.2010 only on Shankey alias Akshay apprising her qua his sighting on the mobile of a boy a video clip holding portrayals of her comprising her chastity vis-a-vis accused Saurabh Mehta, also her testifying qua dehors the aforesaid intimation qua the facet aforesaid purveyed to her by Shankey she would not have lodged the FIR is a forthright display of hers prevaricating the factum of hers succumbing to his sexual overtures under any pretext of marriage offered to her by the accused. Also PW-6, her father conceding to the factum of theirs lodging the FIR merely to salvage their prestige also his conceding to the factum of theirs lodging the FIR qua the incident of 3.1.2010 merely on hear say, amplifyingly scuttles the sinew of the revelations constituted by the prosecutrix in the apposite FIR comprised in Ex.PW21/A. 10. Also PW-6, her father conceding to the factum of theirs lodging the FIR merely to salvage their prestige also his conceding to the factum of theirs lodging the FIR qua the incident of 3.1.2010 merely on hear say, amplifyingly scuttles the sinew of the revelations constituted by the prosecutrix in the apposite FIR comprised in Ex.PW21/A. 10. Be that as it may Shankey alais Akshay, PW-3, who on 3.3.2010 apprised the prosecutrix qua his sighting obscene video clipings of the prosecutrix with accused Saurabh, not supporting the prosecution case also with the father of the prosecutrix feigning ignorance qua the purported obscene video clippings contained in the CD besides PW-7, the mother of the prosecutrix making a communication in her deposition qua theirs proceeding to lodge the apposite FIR on information purveyed by Akshay alias Shankey is a loud display of the lodging of the FIR standing prodded by PW-3 Akshay Kumar alias Shankey, who too has not supported the prosecution case, on his purportedly purveying a false information to the prosecutrix qua his sighting the obscene video clippings of the prosecutrix with accused Saurabh Mehta. The aforesaid train of events foment an inference from this Court of the FIR lodged qua the occurrence of 03.01.2010 on 03.03.2010 hence with a procrastinated inordinate delay of more than two months elapsing therefrom standing not stirred by the prosecutrix succumbing to the sexual overtures of accused Saurabh Mehta on his holding a false allurement of marriage to her rather its institution standing stimulated by as deposed by PW-6 besides deposed by the prosecutrix to salvage their prestige, prestige whereof stood bruised by the afore-referred information purveyed by Shankey to the prosecutrix. Concomitantly the truth of the allegations constituted therein stands eroded. 11. Moreover, the prosecutrix has also conceded qua the factum of accused Saurabh Mehta holding her to sexual intercourse in the month of December, 2009 whereat she did not lodge the apposite FIR qua the incident aforesaid. Her omission to lodge the apposite FIR qua the incident of sexual intercourse to which she stood subjected to by accused Saurabh Mehta in the month of December, 2009, foists a derivative of thereat hers consensually succumbing to the sexual misdemeanors, if any, of the accused bereft of the accused holding any false allurement of marrying her. Her omission to lodge the apposite FIR qua the incident of sexual intercourse to which she stood subjected to by accused Saurabh Mehta in the month of December, 2009, foists a derivative of thereat hers consensually succumbing to the sexual misdemeanors, if any, of the accused bereft of the accused holding any false allurement of marrying her. The apt sequitur ensuing from the deduction aforesaid is of this Court standing fomented to hold qua hers proceeding to room No. 703 of Pin Valley Hotel on 3.1.2010 along with the accused, with hers holding knowledge of the accused leading her thereat with an intention to hold her to sexual intercourse, given both previously consensually holding sexual intercourse in the month of December, 2009. Also the factum of hers in the company of the accused proceeding to the aforesaid room of Pin Valley Hotel gives momentum to a deduction of thereby hers holding consent to the accused to hold her to sexual intercourse bereft of hers standing purveyed a false pretence of marriage by the accused. Furthermore, with no echoings occurring in her testification of the accused subsequent to 3.1.2010 refusing to marry her rather as aforestated the stimulation for hers to lodge the FIR standing afforded by a false information purveyed to her by PW-3 Akshay Kumar alias Shankey qua the aforesaid purportedly sighting on the mobile of a boy her obscene video clippings with accused Saurabh Mehta, is for reiteration a categorical display of hers, alike in the month of December, 2009 to also on 3.1.2010 proceeding to consensually hold sexual intercourse with the accused bereft of any elements or traits of the accused holding any false allurement of marrying her. Predominantly, with the prosecutrix conceding in her deposition of hers standing engaged with one Vivek Sankhyan of Sarkaghat is a vivid display of hers contriving the factum of accused Saurabh Mehta purveying a false offer to marry her whereupon she goaded to succumb to his sexual overtures, conspicuously when given hers standing engaged with one Vivek Shankhyan also when there is no evidence of her betrothal with the aforesaid standing severed, he hence holding no intention to tie the nuptials knot with her, stains hence with a vice of falsity the offer of the accused to marry her wherefrom she purportedly stood prodded to succumb to his sexual overtures, prominently when hence the impact of the purported allurement of marriage proffered to her by the accused would naturally gain no impact upon her nor she would hence stand influenced by it contrarily she is to be construed to consensually succumb to the sexual overtures of accused Saurabh Mehta. Moreover, with the prosecutrix testifying qua accused Saurabh Mehta requesting her to permit his friend to hold coitus with her, bespeaks the trite factum of the accused Saurabh Mehta not holding any false allurement of marrying her. Contrarily, the aforesaid testification is magnificatory of the factum of the prosecutrix when hence acquiesces qua hers thereupon holding the capacity to discern the genuineness of the allurement of marriage purveyed to her by accused Saurabh Mehta, obviously, when she hence overlooked the spuriousness of the offer of marriage purveyed to her by accused Saurabh Mehta, she is defacilitated to espouse of hers succumbing to the sexual overtures of the accused under his purveying a false allurement of marriage to her rather her succumbings to his sexual overtures emanating from hers volitionally meeting consent to him. 12. The sequel of the aforesaid discussion is of hence the charge of conspiracy framed against co-accused Ajay Soni under Section 120-B of the IPC also staggering besides foundering. 12. The sequel of the aforesaid discussion is of hence the charge of conspiracy framed against co-accused Ajay Soni under Section 120-B of the IPC also staggering besides foundering. Even though there is a ascription to him of an inculpatory role of his capturing on his cell/mobile phone obscene postures of the prosecutrix with accused Saurabh Mehta alias Rauni given his occupying the bathroom attached to room No. 703 of the Pin Valley Hotel, which he purportedly circulated amongst his friends yet the aforesaid inculpatory role ascribed to him stands demolished by the factum of the prosecutrix and her father testifying qua theirs not sighting the aforesaid purported obscene video clippings also with PW-3, who purveyed intimation to the prosecutrix qua his sighting her purported obscene video clipping with accused Saurabh Mehta, not supporting the prosecution case besides PW-4 denying the factum of his receiving any obscene video clipping on his cell phone, whereas both the aforesaid stand postured by the Investigating Officer to be the only persons who held knowledge qua the purported circulation by co-accused Ajay Kumar of the purported obscene video clippings of the prosecutrix with accused Saurabh Mehta, nails a conclusion of the charge of conspiracy framed against co-accused Ajay Soni under Section 120-B falling apart. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of the evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.