JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The appellant-accused was accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2012. There was another accused with him but that accused has been acquitted. 2. Briefly stated charges against the present appellant and acquitted accused were under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 was also charge sheeted for the offence under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The charge against accused No. 2 was under all these provisions read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged incidence occurred on 12.07.2012 at about 4.00 P.M. and the victim is stated to be a child, aged about 14 years. Vide judgment delivered on 29.09.2014, the trial Court has acquitted accused No. 2 of all charges while accused No. 1 has been punished for the offence under Sections 376(2)(g), 377 and 506 of I.P.C. as also under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. He is sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376(2)(g), R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 377 thereof. R.I. of six month is ordered under Section 506 of I.P.C. while R.I. for one year under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Fine of Rs. 1,000/- is imposed for the offence under section 377 and Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. In default of fine, the maximum punishment of three months R.I. has been ordered. One more juvenile is also accused in the matter. 3. Heard Shri Daga, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No. 1 and Shri Jawade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Inviting attention to oral evidence of the victim, Shri Daga, learned counsel submits that her cross examination itself reveals that she accepted accused No. 1, leaving the hotel of DW-1-Shanti and proceeding along with accused No. 2, juvenile accused and one more person to the alleged spot where the crime took place. She was also accompanied by her friend who has been examined as PW-3. As per story of prosecution, friend PW-3 and accused No. 2 stopped at a distance of about 1/2 km and the victim along with juvenile accused, appellant accused and one more person proceeded to the secluded spot. She was also accompanied by her friend who has been examined as PW-3. As per story of prosecution, friend PW-3 and accused No. 2 stopped at a distance of about 1/2 km and the victim along with juvenile accused, appellant accused and one more person proceeded to the secluded spot. The victim, however in cross, has accepted that the motorcycle and mobile with accused No. 1 (present appellant) was demanded by juvenile accused and was accordingly given to him. In view of this clear admission, the conviction of the appellant-accused No. 1 is unwarranted. He further invites attention to the testimony of the victim to demonstrate that the prosecution alleges total four criminal acts by the appellant and none of them constitutes rape under Section 375 I.P.C. as defined then. At the most an offence under Section 377 could have been alleged. However, there is no video showing any carnal penetration and even PW-5-Doctor did not find it necessary to conduct that examination. Total three video clippings allegedly prepared on mobile are relied upon by the prosecution and in none of the clippings, face of other person or this appellant is seen. There is no evidence to connect the appellant-accused with any of those acts in those clippings. His participation in preparation of video or involvement in crime is, therefore, not proved by the prosecution. 5. According to the learned counsel, PW-1-victim does not speak of any vaginal intercourse during her examination-in-chief and was required to be recalled by moving an application at Exh. 84. After that application was allowed, she has spoken about the same but then none of the clips support her application. He invites attention to medical evidence tendered by PW-5 Doctor to urge that it also does not support the prosecution. He points out that even medical examination of the appellant is insufficient to implicate him. He submits that after alleged incidence, FIR has been lodged belatedly. The delay is on account of attempt made by the victim and her family members to extort money from the family of the appellant. As the appellant could have been harassed in the matter, in order to avoid complications, parents of the appellant attempted a reasonable settlement but then the victim/her family members demanded an amount of Rs. Five lakh. As these negotiations were going on, FIR was not lodged immediately and there is delay. 6. As the appellant could have been harassed in the matter, in order to avoid complications, parents of the appellant attempted a reasonable settlement but then the victim/her family members demanded an amount of Rs. Five lakh. As these negotiations were going on, FIR was not lodged immediately and there is delay. 6. Our attention is invited to the fact that there is no evidence by the prosecution to show that the victim is born on 04.07.1999. The birth extract on record does not conclusively establish this fact. Even association of victim with PW-3-Prachi becomes doubtful as she has admitted that she met with her just 15 days prior to the incidence. Coming down heavily upon the order dated 04.07.2014, permitting recall of PW-1, the learned counsel states that the chief of victim was over on 22.04.2014 and she had received alleged threatening calls on 16.04.2014. The story narrated by her is highly improbable and our attention is drawn to non cognisable report dated 17.04.1984. It is pointed out that chief was continuing on 18.04.2014 also. 7. The evidence of PW-6-Ravindra Tappe, who has proved birth certificate (Exh. 81) is assailed by pointing out that the name of the victim could not have appeared in said register. The name of child at Sr. No. 1 on said page has been added after following proper procedure and no such procedure appears to have been followed while adding name of victim against entry in birth register. The name of mother is also wrongly recorded as Sau. Suneeta. The medical evidence adduced by PW-7-Dr. Padgelwar is strongly relied upon to show that it does not contain clinical details to show carnal intercourse and no injuries are found on the body of the appellant. The Doctor PW-5 also found no injuries on victim anywhere and answers given by her to question Nos. 7 and 8 are strongly relied upon. 8. The evidence of PW-2-Bhaskar is challenged on the ground that it does not show recovery of mobile from a place specially within the knowledge of the appellant-accused. It was found on a table in residential house and as such it cannot be accepted as discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further pointed out that Bhaskar Sahare has acted as panch in about 100 to 125 cases. It was found on a table in residential house and as such it cannot be accepted as discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further pointed out that Bhaskar Sahare has acted as panch in about 100 to 125 cases. This panch speaks of only one video clip in that mobile and no panchnama of viewing of that clip has been drawn. This witness states that after completing all formalities, he left police station at 8.30 AM while the papers prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act show that memorandum panchnama was written at 8.25 AM and recovery panchnama has been completed at 8.55 AM. 9. This panchnama does not mention memory card at all. It points out only mobile and sim card. The mobile has been forwarded to forensic experts on 01.09.2012 and thus its whereabouts between 14.07.2012 to 01.09.2012 are unknown. The forensic report at Exh. 120 mentions three pornographic films dated 12.07.2012. Those films do not depict the appellant at all. There are 16 other similar films found in the mobile but there is no investigation in relation thereto. The experts also point out that three films have been deleted on 12.07.2012 but again there is no clarification about the same. There is no video file on sim card. If memory card is not seized on 14.07.2012, it is not legally part of investigation and not before the Court and expert report at Exh. 128 upon it cannot be perused. The Investigating Officer PW-9 has accepted that memory card is not produced before the Court. 10. Shri Daga, learned counsel invites our attention to the fact that important omissions in deposition of PW-1-victim and PW-4-mother are also proved through this witness PW-9. 11. The report of Chemical Analyser is heavily relied upon to demonstrate that no semen has been found on the clothes of the victim. Some blood has been found on the underwear of the victim and underwear of juvenile accused. On clothes of the appellant, neither blood nor semen has been found. 12. The admission or assertion of the victim that shooting was done with the help of two mobiles, is pressed into service to urge that second mobile and its owner have not been traced out. The victim was not made to identify the appellant. Similar omissions in the evidence of her friend PW-3 are also relied upon. 13. 12. The admission or assertion of the victim that shooting was done with the help of two mobiles, is pressed into service to urge that second mobile and its owner have not been traced out. The victim was not made to identify the appellant. Similar omissions in the evidence of her friend PW-3 are also relied upon. 13. According to Shri Daga, learned counsel, thus there is no material on record to connect the appellant with the crime and to show that he accompanied the victim and other persons to the alleged spot. He, therefore, submits that in present matter, participation by the appellant is not established at all and hence he must be acquitted. While recording Section 313 statement, alleged rape or material on record in relation thereto has not been put to him. Similarly, the entire evidence of the friend of the victim i.e. PW-3 is not put to him and his attention has also not been invited to the report of experts on mobile or memory card. The written explanation submitted by the appellant as part of his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and testimony of DW-1 Shanti deserves due credence. 14. He has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan, reported at 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2240 and in the case of Munna v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at (2014) 1 SCC (Cri.) 677, to show the impact of not putting said material to the appellant. 15. Shri Jawade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that by examining an independent officer-PW-6, the fact that female child is born on 04.07.1999 has been proved. The original was brought and has been duly verified by the Court. There is no cross examination of said witness. The age of the victim on the date of incidence was just 13 years and eight days. As such, no ossification test was essential and the fact that she may have consented to the crime or otherwise is immaterial. Her evidence cannot be disbelieved. 16. The evidence of PW-8 is relied upon to urge that there is no delay in filing of FIR. If the appellant wanted to bring on record negotiations as alleged, he ought to have examined his parents as additional defence witnesses. 17. Her evidence cannot be disbelieved. 16. The evidence of PW-8 is relied upon to urge that there is no delay in filing of FIR. If the appellant wanted to bring on record negotiations as alleged, he ought to have examined his parents as additional defence witnesses. 17. He further submits that the order of recall of victim was obtained by filing application at Exh. 84 containing adequate grounds and it was never opposed. The deletion of three films from the memory card as reported by the experts, supports the submission of the victim about the offending Acts and it is rightly accepted by the trial Court. 18. The evidence of PW-5-Doctor proves rape as defined in Section 375 and her medical examination has been conducted within 24 hours. Opinion is also given within 24 hours. The evidence of PW-7-Doctor is also relied upon to urge that it implicates the appellant. 19. The learned APP submits that the conduct of the victim is natural and immediately after the incident, she has informed it to PW-3 by coming to the place where PW-3 and acquitted co-accused were standing. This part of deposition has gone unchallenged. 20. By inviting attention to cross examination of the defence witness-Shanti, he has explained the topography of area. He submits that the material on record shows that the appellant-accused No. 1 has travelled with the victim to the spot and has participated in the crime. The specific answer given by PW-1 in this respect is relied upon by him. The description of clips given by the Trial Court in paragraph 27 of its judgment is also relied upon by him to urge that it substantiates the charges as levelled. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 21. A perusal of deposition of PW-1-victim shows that on the date of deposition, she had appeared in 10th standard examination. She deposed that she knows the appellant, acquitted accused and third person i.e. juvenile. The incident took place on 12.07.2012. She had not gone to school on that day. Along with her friend-PW-3, who was studying in 9th standard in her school, she went to bazar for purchasing book. They went to the house of sister-in-law of said friend where they stayed up to 1.00 PM. They then started on foot and reached near ice factory. The juvenile accused came and asked her for a walk. Along with her friend-PW-3, who was studying in 9th standard in her school, she went to bazar for purchasing book. They went to the house of sister-in-law of said friend where they stayed up to 1.00 PM. They then started on foot and reached near ice factory. The juvenile accused came and asked her for a walk. She was knowing him. He thereafter took victim and her friend on motorcycle to the shop of DW-1 where he offered them pouch of water and chiwada. Two friends of juvenile were then present in the shop. The juvenile was speaking something with them. Then juvenile told her that they should go for walk. She sat on motorcycle driven by the juvenile and behind her, the present appellant sat. Her friend sat on motorcycle driven by acquitted accused. The 2 motorcycles then proceeded towards forest, left pakka road and took kacha road going through trees and bushes where motorcycles were stopped and then juvenile asked her to walk. She asked him as to why they should go for walk. He told that he wanted to speak something with her. Thus, the juvenile and present appellant took her on foot at a long distance in the forest. Her friend and acquitted accused stopped where motorcycles were parked. The juvenile then forcibly pulled her scarf, spread it on the ground. Then she speaks of the wrong acts done by the juvenile with her when present appellant was doing video shooting with the help of a mobile handset. Then the appellant threatened her and repeated same with her. She describes total four acts by the present appellant. Twice he inserted his penis in her mouth and twice he inserted it in her anus. She claimed that he indulged in sexual intercourse. The trial Court has recorded "sexual intercourse means …... inserted his pennies in my mouth and in my anus. (She has used name of present appellant). The appellant threatened her that if she would disclose incident to anybody, he will beat her and show video shooting to everybody. Because of threat she could not do anything and obeyed him. The appellant told her not to disclose the incident to anybody. After that she managed to ware her clothes and rushed towards her friend and narrated the entire incident to her. Because of threat she could not do anything and obeyed him. The appellant told her not to disclose the incident to anybody. After that she managed to ware her clothes and rushed towards her friend and narrated the entire incident to her. The acquitted accused then brought her and her friend on his motorcycle near petrol pump from where she rushed home. She narrated the incident to her mother. After her father came, she narrated the incident to him. Along with father, she went to police station at about 10 PM and the police recorded her statement at 12 in the mid night. She was then sent to General Hospital. She has identified her clothes, clothes of the appellant. She also identified the mobile of the appellant. 22. The Trial Court permitted the prosecution to show and display CD down loaded from mobile by the Experts to the victim. She has deposed that in clip No. 1 she is lying on scarf on the ground and boy slipping and getting up from her was juvenile. Then the appellant accused No. 1 was doing shooting with his mobile. In clip No. 2, accused No. 1 (appellant) is inserting his penis in her mouth. She claims that juvenile was shooting this clip by mobile. In clip No. 3, she is shown masturbating penis of the appellant-accused. The juvenile was shooting this clip. She claimed that most of whatever was done with her was picturised but that part was deleted. Thereafter she has been cross examined and during cross examination, the Trial Court viewed the clip and noted that face of the appellant could not be seen. A specific question about description of clip No. 1 was put to her and she could not assign any reason as to why the facts mentioned by her did not appear in her statement before the police. The same question about clip No. 2 and clip No. 3 about deletion of most of the part was put to her but she could not explain any reason for its non appearance in her police statement. 23. Her cross examination was resumed after recess and she has stated that after giving his mobile and motorcycle to juvenile accused, present appellant left the shop of DW-1. 23. Her cross examination was resumed after recess and she has stated that after giving his mobile and motorcycle to juvenile accused, present appellant left the shop of DW-1. She stated that after the appellant went away, she consumed chiwada, took water and thereafter she, juvenile accused and one friend of juvenile accused sat on one motorcycle belonging to juvenile while acquitted accused and her friend sat on other motorcycle and they proceeded towards forest. She stated that she was knowing the name of the friend of juvenile who was sitting on motorcycle. She accepted that at the time of incident, she was not knowing his name. She denied the name of said friend suggested to her by the defence counsel as that name. She accepted that the Medical Officer did not examine her anus. 24. It appears that thereafter because of orders passed below Exhs. 76, 84 and 88, the victim was recalled. 25. On 07.06.2014, the prosecution submitted an application through PW-1 at Exh. 84 stating that she wanted to depose on certain facts about rape. She has then deposed that juvenile accused had vaginal sexual intercourse also. The appellant (accused No. 1) removed her pant, nicker and had vaginal intercourse twice. She has also spoken about insertion of their organ by them in her mouth and anus. She stated that previously she did not depose about it as she was frightened. The friend of accused had threatened her brother and father on phone. She was, thereafter, subjected to cross examination. This deposition of rape is recorded on 04.07.2014 i.e. almost 2½ months after her evidence was over. Her cross examination reveals that she received alleged threatening calls on 16.04.2014 i.e. before 22.04.2014 when her remaining cross examination was recorded by the trial Court. It appears that her examination-in-chief was concluded on 18.04.2014 and cross examination on behalf of accused No. 1 commenced. It was deferred to 24.04.2014 and completed on that day. Thereafter because of orders on Exh. 84 dated 07.06.2014, she was recalled and further examined in chief on 04.07.2014. Thus, when in chief she deposed about oral or anal intercourse, in spite of the alleged threats, she had no fear. Her first examination-in-chief in which she has given these details and also explained meaning of sexual intercourse, is recorded on 17.04.2014. 84 dated 07.06.2014, she was recalled and further examined in chief on 04.07.2014. Thus, when in chief she deposed about oral or anal intercourse, in spite of the alleged threats, she had no fear. Her first examination-in-chief in which she has given these details and also explained meaning of sexual intercourse, is recorded on 17.04.2014. In spite of alleged threats, she could give those details on 17.04.2014, explain what "sexual intercourse" meant and did not speak of events constituting "rape". 26. Her cross examination reveals that her father received threatening calls on 16.04.2014. She further stated that she signed application at Exh. 84 in Police Station and went to home. She was not aware of contents of application at Exh. 84. She has denied suggestion that at the time of incident, the appellant was not present on the spot. She has deposed that two separate mobiles were used for shooting the sexual activities. She denied that at the time of incident, another person was present with the juvenile accused and that she did not know name of that person. She further stated that her clothes were stained with semen and her scarf was also stained with semen. 27. The vaginal intercourse does not appear in video clips produced by the prosecution before the Court. The contents of video clips were not put to prosecutrix by the police during investigation. Though she stated that she disclosed contents thereof to police, it is found to be an omission in her police statement. Similarly, about clip No. 2, there is similar omission and hence act of accused No. 1, inserting penis in her mouth and juvenile accused shooting it, is not appearing in her police statement. About clip No. 3, the act of masturbating is again similar omission. She was asked about her contention of deletion of most part of the shooting, she answered that she pointed out deletion to the police but then the same is again an omission in her police statement. All these omissions are duly brought on record through Investigating Officer. 28. The contents of video clips as described by the trial Court in para 27 of its judgment are not in dispute. The same are : 1. First Clip : It is seen while viewing the CD that some third person was taking shooting of the scene. All these omissions are duly brought on record through Investigating Officer. 28. The contents of video clips as described by the trial Court in para 27 of its judgment are not in dispute. The same are : 1. First Clip : It is seen while viewing the CD that some third person was taking shooting of the scene. In the CD one girl is seen lying having face upward on a bed sheet which was spread in open ground. One boy was lying upon her. They have not remove their clothes. In the next moment the boy is seen standing up and thereafter girl is seen standing up in an attempt to become away from each other. This clip ends here. 2. Second Clip : This clip contains scene that one girl is sucking penis of a person. Face of the person is not seen. Face of the girl is being seen. After this scene the clip ends. 3. Third Clip : In this clip breasts of the girl are seen open. Her face is also seen. It is seen that the girl is trying to hide her face by her hand while the shooting was going on and in the second hand she has caught penis of the person in the C.D. She is fondling with the penis of the person by her hand and moving it in upward and downward direction in fast movement in order to stimulate erection of penis in sexual act. Both the girl and the boy were in standing position. No sexual intercourse is seen. After this scene the C.D. ends here. 29. Thus, no material on record reveals vaginal intercourse. The said act constituting rape as then defined under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, has been described for the first time by the victim when she was recalled 2½ months after completion of recording of her deposition. The consideration thereof is already undertaken by us supra. 30. A perusal of Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 116) shows that no semen is detected on full pant, top, underwear or dupatta (scarf) of the victim. Similarly, no semen is detected on the clothes of minor accused or present appellant. No blood is detected except on Article 5, which is underwear of the victim and Article 9 which is underwear of juvenile. 116) shows that no semen is detected on full pant, top, underwear or dupatta (scarf) of the victim. Similarly, no semen is detected on the clothes of minor accused or present appellant. No blood is detected except on Article 5, which is underwear of the victim and Article 9 which is underwear of juvenile. Thus, human blood is detected only on the underwear of the juvenile and the victim. This brings us to consideration of medical evidence of the victim and the appellant. 31. PW-5-Dr. Ingale has examined the victim on 13.07.2012 and also given the report thereof. That report is at Exh. 74-A. Because of fresh tear, vaginal tenderness, redness over post commissure, the inference of rape has been drawn. In cross, Doctor accepted that her medical examination does not contain any finding in respect of examination of anus. She accepted that in case of anal intercourse, injuries are bound to occur in anus. A perusal of Exh. 74-A shows that the examination was conducted at 5.30 AM on 13.07.2012 i.e. within 24 hours of the occurrence. In extra genital examination, the Doctor has found no injuries over any part of victim's body. The certificate also shows that Doctor had taken vaginal swab, anal swab and oral swab. Conduct of this doctor in procuring anal swab but not examining it for any injury etc. does not inspire confidence. While answering queries, the victim is found not habitual to intercourse and a strong possibility of intercourse is expressed. 32. PW-7-Dr. Padgelwar has examined the appellant-accused No. 1 on 13.07.2012. He found him capable of doing intercourse, examined his organ, collected necessary samples. This examination was conducted at 6.30 AM on 13.07.2012. In cross examination, Doctor has answered that in anal intercourse, the injuries to penis may occur or may not occur. He has also stated that it may or may not cause injury to anus also. 33. In Exh. 94-A, while answering queries, PW-7 has reported that no injuries are found on the body or genital organs of accused No. 1 appellant. The certificate issued by him at Exh. 95, does not reveal any comment on presence or absence of smegma. 34. 33. In Exh. 94-A, while answering queries, PW-7 has reported that no injuries are found on the body or genital organs of accused No. 1 appellant. The certificate issued by him at Exh. 95, does not reveal any comment on presence or absence of smegma. 34. Thus, the manner in which deposition in support of offence under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code has come on record, as also deposition of the victim that accused No. 1 had left the hotel of DW-1-Shanti, after handing over the keys of motorcycle and mobile to juvenile accused, shakes her creditworthiness and does not establish involvement of accused No. 1 in the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt. Here, admission that two mobiles were used to shoot the deeds/acts also show presence or availability of one more person at the site of offence. PW-1 states that she left for spot after appellant went away from the hotel of Shanti. She sat pillion on motorcycle driven by juvenile and other boy was sitting behind her. Thus there were three persons on the same vehicle. This evidence definitely helps the present appellant. The medical evidence and video mentioned supra, also does not implicate him in the matter. 35. Accused No. 1 has examined Smt. Shanti as defence witness. She accepts visit of juvenile accused with two girls and then visit of accused No. 1 also. She deposes that the juvenile accused demanded keys of motorcycle from accused No. 1 and also demanded his mobile. Accused No. 1 gave keys of his motorcycle as also mobile to juvenile accused. Thereafter accused No. 1 left her tea stall. After he left, two more boys came by motorcycle and then two girls, juvenile accused and these two boys (who came later) left by two motorcycles. Accused No. 1 was not present at that time. Though she has been subjected to cross examination, nothing to discredit her has been brought on record. 36. There is also challenge to finding on age of the victim. However, the age is spoken of by victim herself. PW-6 Ravindra is an employee of Municipal Council and the Birth register of the Municipal Council is maintained in his department under his supervision. He has proved relevant entries therein. In that register, name of the victim with name of her father and surname appears. However, the age is spoken of by victim herself. PW-6 Ravindra is an employee of Municipal Council and the Birth register of the Municipal Council is maintained in his department under his supervision. He has proved relevant entries therein. In that register, name of the victim with name of her father and surname appears. She is shown to be born at General Hospital on 04.07.1999 and entry has been taken on 13.08.1999. As such, mentioning of name of child more than five weeks after birth cannot a doubtful circumstance. The name of mother of victim is Sushila. In the register, name appears to have been recorded as Sunita. However, the fact that it is second delivery, also finds mention. If any fabrication was to be done, such a mistake while recording name of mother would not have occurred. 37. There is also challenge to recovery of mobile from present appellant. PW-2-Bhaskar is a witness, who has proved it. His deposition shows that he has acted as panch on spot panchnama i.e. Exh. 63 and also on seizure of motorcycle in this matter. He is panch on seizure of clothes of the victim, motorcycle from acquitted accused. He has accepted that he has acted as a panch at least 100 to 125 cases for the police. 38. The appellant is arrested on 13.07.2012 at about 8.05 A.M. His memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to discovery of mobile is recorded on 14.07.2012 at 7.00 AM. He stated that said mobile was kept at his residence. It is recorded that thereafter he has carried police to his house and then in a room, one mobile was found lying on the table. Accused No. 1 told that it was the mobile used for shooting. It contained one memory card and sim card. Accused No. 1 operated mobile and shown video clip. PW-2 claims that he has seen video clip which reveal insertion of penis in the mouth of victim. It was seized and sealed. He has identified the mobile as article 13-A, its battery as article 13-B and sim card as article 13-C. Memory card was not produced before the Court by the prosecution. His cross examination reveals that after completing the entire exercise of recovery of mobile and recording of panchnama, he left the police station at 8.30 AM. Panchnama at Exh. He has identified the mobile as article 13-A, its battery as article 13-B and sim card as article 13-C. Memory card was not produced before the Court by the prosecution. His cross examination reveals that after completing the entire exercise of recovery of mobile and recording of panchnama, he left the police station at 8.30 AM. Panchnama at Exh. 66 reveals that initial disclosure memorandum was recorded at police station between 8.10 AM to 8.25 AM. The actual recovery panchnama is recorded at spot of seizure between 8.40 AM to 8.55 AM. This person, who has acted as panch in large number of cases and claims to be Press Reporter, could not have given wrong time, normally. Moreover, this mobile was also not seized from some secret place. It was lying openly in a residential house on a table. There is no investigation to find out who was its owner, when, by whom and how it was used between 12.07.2012 to 14.07.2012. Thus, no efforts have been taken to trace out the actual user of this mobile immediately before or after the alleged crime. Collection of CDR and other details from the service provider could have helped in finding out the truth in this regard. 39. Forensic report on examination of mobile, sim card and memory card is at Exh. 120. Three pornographic video films created on 12.07.2014 were found in memory card and those were supplied in CD by the experts. Other 16 pornographic files were also seen on memory card and they were given in another CD. Traces of three deleted pornographic video files with creation date 12.07.2012 have been also seen by the experts. No video file was found in sim card. As the memory card was within mobile and sealed with it, there is no independent proof of the seizure of the memory card or its contents. Appellant has pointed out that sim card fins mention separately in the seizure panchanama. As relation of accused with that mobile or its use by him or its ownership is not investigated into, said piece of evidence, even if accepted, can not form an incriminating circumstance. The police have not looked into relevance or otherwise of the large number pornographic films found on it by the experts. 40. This material, therefore, is insufficient to connect the appellant-accused No. 1 with the acts complained of by the victim. 41. The police have not looked into relevance or otherwise of the large number pornographic films found on it by the experts. 40. This material, therefore, is insufficient to connect the appellant-accused No. 1 with the acts complained of by the victim. 41. In addition to this, the important incriminating evidence like rape deposed to by the victim, entire evidence of her friend-PW-3 (also a minor) and expert report on mobile has not been put to the appellant during his Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code examination. The judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) (paragraph 25) and in the case of Munna v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra) (paragraph 20), therefore, does not allow use of such material against him. 42. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rudhirkumar Kashinath Panda v. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2128 (paragraphs 7 and 8) has pointed out that much value cannot be given to the evidence of a pliable witness like PW-2 Bhaskar. 43. In this situation, we find the material on record insufficient to connect accused No. 1-appellant with the crime. We, therefore, proceed to pass the following order : 1. Criminal Appeal is allowed. 2. The appellant-accused is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The appellant be set free immediately, if his custody is not required in any other matter. 4. Muddemal property be dealt with as directed by the Trial Court after appeal period is over.