JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Four appellants have filed these two separate appeals against the judgment and order dated 7.7.1983 passed by then 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 513 of 1981 (State v. Pramod and others) arising out of Case crime No. 250 of 1980, Police Station Thariyaon. District Fatehpur. 2. Both appeals stem from a common judgment and common evidence, therefore, both the appeals are being decided by a common judgment. 3. Appellant Pramod was convicted under Section 366 Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment (in short, R.I.). Appellants Suresh Kumar alias Avadesh Kumar and Raghav alias Raghvendra Kumar were convicted under Sections 376 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant Mithlesh Kumar was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Raghav alias Raghvendra was also convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to ten years R.I. 4. In view of Section 228-A of IPC, identity of victim of alleged rape is not being disclosed and she will be referred as prosecutrix only. 5. Prosecution story, in brief, is that prosecutrix, a married woman was living at her parental house with her parents in village Aurai, Police Station Thariyaon District Fatehpur at the time of incident. Her husband Prithivi Pal wrote a letter to her father expressing his inability to come to take his wife (prosecutrix). He asked that prosecutrix should be sent back to her matrimonial home at village Chaumauli, Police Station Dibiyapur, the then District Etawah now District Auraiya with some other arrangements. Appellant Pramod, a neighbour of prosecutrix’s parental home and known person offered to take her to her matrimonial home to which her parents agreed. 6. Accused-appellant Pramod accompanied by prosecutrix left the village Aurai, Police Station Thariiyaon district Fatehpur. He took her to Rasoolabad Railway Station where accused-appellant Raghav alias Raghvendra also met them. They boarded the train. At Fatehpur railway station, Raghuvendra and Pramod disembarked from the train on the pretext of searching vacant place in other compartment. Pramod went to search vacant seats in other compartment. Suddenly train departed. Prosecutrix started crying but Raghav alias Raghvendra consoled her and promised to leave her at parental home next day because no other train was available on that day. He took her to a tubewell at ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’ belonging to one Muslim. Pramod went to search vacant seats in other compartment. Suddenly train departed. Prosecutrix started crying but Raghav alias Raghvendra consoled her and promised to leave her at parental home next day because no other train was available on that day. He took her to a tubewell at ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’ belonging to one Muslim. A room (kothari) also existed on the tubewell wherein co-accused Mithelesh and Suresh, cousins of Raghvendra were living with their mother, who was also aunt (father’s sister/Bua) of Raghvendra. Allegations are that both appellants Mithelesh and Suresh alias Avadesh Kumar confined the prosecutrix in kothari for 1 ¾ month and they repeatedly raped her despite her protest. She claims to have complained to the mother of Suresh alias Awadesh and Mithelesh but of no avail. It is further alleged that Raghvendra also subjected her to rape on his frequent visits to this kothari. It is alleged that this single room had a roof over which a tin shed stood pitched up as covering. Mithelesh and Suresh alias Awadesh used to keep the victim there. It is further stated that on one day, she managed to flee from his room on the pretext of need to defecate. She managed to reach Kotwali Fatehpur. She lodged First Information Report (in short, FIR).She was sent to District Hospital for medical examination. A site-plan was prepared at her instance and later on she went to her parental home as her husband refused to keep her after this incident. 7. Sri Diwakar Singh (PW-2) was asked to conduct investigation. He conducted investigation and subsequent to investigation filed charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 IPC. The charge-sheets are on record as Ex Ka-3, Ex Ka-4 and Ex Ka-5. The trial Judge framed charges against Pramod Kumar under Section 366 IPC, against Raghav alias Raghvendra under Section 366, 376 IPC, against Suresh Kumar and Mithelesh under Sections 376 IPC on 6.11.1982. Accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. Prosecution produced five witnesses, namely, PW-1 Diwakar Singh, PW-2 Dr. Nallini Gaur, PW-3 Constable Jashvir Singh, PW-4 Prosecutrix and PW-5 Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh. Statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they denied all the allegations. They did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 9. 8. Prosecution produced five witnesses, namely, PW-1 Diwakar Singh, PW-2 Dr. Nallini Gaur, PW-3 Constable Jashvir Singh, PW-4 Prosecutrix and PW-5 Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh. Statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they denied all the allegations. They did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 9. The trial Judge concluded that there is sufficient evidence against all the appellants, therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated 7.7.1983. This judgment is under challenge before this Court. 10. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla for appellants Mithelesh, Suresh Kumar alias Avadesh Kumar and Raghav alias Raghvendra, Sri Shyam Sunder Misra for appellant Pramod and Sri Syed Ali Murtuza, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that in the present case, there is no corroboration of evidence of prosecutrix. Medical report does not inspire confidence. Testimony of prosecutrix is full of discrepancies and contradictions. They have also argued that such evidence should not be taken into consideration especially in the light of contradictions. They have further argued that prosecutrix was not taken away from her parental home and that she left her place of her own volition. 12. On the other hand, Sri Syed Ali Murtuza, learned AGA has submitted that testimony of victim should be treated at part with injured witness and that no corroboration is required to support the testimony of prosecutrix. He has further submitted that character of victim is certainly not in trial in this case. 13. We believe that as far as law is concerned, the testimony of prosecutrix does not require corroboration on material particulars. It is well-settled legal position that sole testimony of prosecutrix can be relied for conviction of the accused provided such testimony is cogent and inspires confidence and accepted by Court as such. We also believe that once testimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is found credible and trustworthy, her sole testimony is sufficient for passing conviction order against the accused. Only test is reliability and credibility of witness. If sole testimony is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, then Court cannot acquit the accused merely because other independent witnesses are not available. We also believe that minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies are not sufficient ground for rejecting the testimony of sole prosecutrix if otherwise found trustworthy. Only test is reliability and credibility of witness. If sole testimony is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, then Court cannot acquit the accused merely because other independent witnesses are not available. We also believe that minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies are not sufficient ground for rejecting the testimony of sole prosecutrix if otherwise found trustworthy. We also believe that prosecutrix of a rape case is not accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appraised just as testimony of any other witness. But we also believe that if Court finds, it difficult to believe the story of prosecutrix at its face value then it may seek direct or circumstantial evidence in support of her allegations. In the present case, out of five prosecution witnesses, four witnesses are merely formal witnesses. PW-5 Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh recorded the FIR and entered it into G.D. No. 46 at 9:10 p.m.. He admitted that prosecutrix reached at the Police Station at 9:10 p.m.. PW-2 Dr. Smt. Nalini Gaur merely examined the prosecutrix and prepared medical reports. PW-3 Constable Jashvir Singh adduced link evidence saying that he took prosecutrix to Female Hospital for medical examination on 14.12.1980. PW-1 Sub Inspector Diwakar Singh conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet against accused persons. If we ignore these four witnesses, then it will appear that prosecution has given only one witness, namely, prosecutrix (PW-4). Therefore, Court has no option but to examine the sole testimony of prosecutrix with critical care. 14. The prosecution story indicates that prosecutrix was wife of one Prithivi Pal. She had been living at her matrimonial home substantially but at the time of incident, she was living with her parents at Aurai, Police Station Thariyaon, District Fatehpur. It is alleged that husband could not come to fetch her on account of lack of time, therefore, he requested the parents of prosecutrix to make some other arrangement and then Pramod, accused-appellant entered into picture, who was neighbour of prosecutrix. Admittedly, they knew each other reasonably well. Pramod offered to accompany prosecutrix and parents agreed. Prosecutrix was abducted in between and kept at a tubewell of one Muslim at ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’. She managed to free herself from there after 1 -3/4 months. 15. There are several unanswered questions in the story of prosecutrix. First, prosecutrix lived for two months in single room. There was no toilet. Prosecutrix was abducted in between and kept at a tubewell of one Muslim at ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’. She managed to free herself from there after 1 -3/4 months. 15. There are several unanswered questions in the story of prosecutrix. First, prosecutrix lived for two months in single room. There was no toilet. In fact, during night, she was kept on roof top covered with a tin shed. If her story is true, then she was raped repeatedly by two real brothers, namely, Mithelesh and Suresh alias Awdesh. It is also stated that she was confined to this room where she was kept under guard, not only by these two accused persons but also by their mother. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that it is rather inconceivable that a woman is being kept for two months with other woman and yet second woman did not render any help. We believe that this story may not be palatable to most people but such instances are not unknown, where parents have completely lost control over their children. But in our opinion, there are several uncomfortable and unanswered questions in the prosecution story. 16. The prosecutrix remained in kothari for almost two months with accused persons after her abduction yet no report of her disappearance was lodged either by her parents or husband. This is strange thing. Nobody questioned Pramod with whom prosecutrix had left for her matrimonial home. No answer is forth coming from prosecution. Similarly not a single member of her family has supported the prosecution allegation. Her parents have not appeared in witness box. Two elder sisters of prosecutrix have not come forward to support the prosecution evidence. On the contrary, elder sister of prosecutrix has married the main accused Raghav alias Raghvendra subsequent to submission of charge-sheet. Prosecutrix (PW-4) has conceded this point in cross-examination. She has admitted that she was not kept by her husband subsequent to this incident and that she is living with one Ram Krishana in matrimonial relationship though she has not been formally divorced by her first husband. 17. Prosecutrix has also admitted that her elder sister Suman alias Rooprani has married accused-appellant Raghav alias Raghvendra. She has conceded that she did have some differences with her sister Suman though she has denied the allegation that she has falsely implicated Raghav on account of jealousy with her sister Suman. 17. Prosecutrix has also admitted that her elder sister Suman alias Rooprani has married accused-appellant Raghav alias Raghvendra. She has conceded that she did have some differences with her sister Suman though she has denied the allegation that she has falsely implicated Raghav on account of jealousy with her sister Suman. The testimony of prosecutrix is full of significant discrepancies. The FIR says that she was repeatedly raped by appellants Mithelesh, Suresh and Raghav at the tube well at ‘Turab Ali Purwa’. Initially no allegation was levelled against accused Pramod for committing rape upon prosecutrix. In fact, contents of FIR says that Pramod and Raghav Pandit disembarked from the bogey of train on the pretext of non-availability of space or over crowding. When Pramod went to look for a vacant compartment, the train left the station. Raghav Pandit allegedly lured and took her to tubewell at ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’ where she was kept under surveillance of co-accused Mithelesh, Suresh alias Awadesh and their mother. There is no allegation in the FIR that Pramod took her to ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’. There is no allegation that he visited her at ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’ even once. During investigation also she stated the same thing, that is why trial Judge framed no charge under Section 376 IPC against accused-appellant Pramod but her testimony creates some complication. During her testimony prosecutrix stated that both Pramod and Raghav Pandit took her to ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’ and confined her at tubewell there. She again changed her version by levelling allegation that all the four accused persons repeatedly raped her at tubewell. The role of Pramod is completely absent from FIR and original prosecution story after his departure for purported search for vacant compartment in the train. But in her evidence she levelled allegation of rape against all the four accused persons. 18. Subsequently, this witness also stated that one day she left her dwelling unit on pretext of need to defecate. There is no specific statement that here was no toilet in the room but examination of overall evidence would reveal that there was no separate toilet in that room. In fact, it was a single room which was covered by tin shed, meaning thereby that inhabitants of room had to go agricultural field every day for defecation. There is no specific statement that here was no toilet in the room but examination of overall evidence would reveal that there was no separate toilet in that room. In fact, it was a single room which was covered by tin shed, meaning thereby that inhabitants of room had to go agricultural field every day for defecation. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that victim could have left earlier on the same pretext. She did not raise any alarm during her confinement at tubewell. At one place prosecutrix has admitted and site plan also indicate that there was a public path near the tubewell and one day infact, prosecutrix had some conversation with one woman, wife of one Khatik. The question is how the prosecutrix, who was completely confined in a room, became aware that particular woman is wife of khatik? Prosecutrix has also admitted that room where she was confined was surrounded by agricultural field, orchard and one pond. She has also admitted that this house belongs to a Muslim person. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a valid question and this is a very pertinent question that under what circumstances prosecutrix did not get any opportunity for two months to contact any person or visit agricultural field, orchard or pond or the owner of the tubewell. How come owner of the tubewell did not visit her room even once for such a long time. All these questions are reasonable and cannot be ignored. Fact of the matter is that no explanation has been ever offered on behalf of prosecution. 19. Another significant discrepancy can be noticed in the testimony of prosecutrix. She has said that she managed to leave the place of her confinement at 4:00am in the morning. She has further stated that she reached Kotwali, at 7:00am. She has explained the delay of three hours by saying that she had to inquire the location of Kotwali from several persons. Now Chik report (Ex Ka-8) discloses that FIR was recorded on 13.12.1980 at 9:10 p.m. (night). This entry and testimony of prosecutrix are totally contradictory. Not only this, PW-5 Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh has also said that prosecutrix reached Police Station at 9:10 p.m. (night). Prosecutrix says that she reached there in the morning at 7:00am yet report was lodged in the night at 9:10 p.m.. This entry and testimony of prosecutrix are totally contradictory. Not only this, PW-5 Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh has also said that prosecutrix reached Police Station at 9:10 p.m. (night). Prosecutrix says that she reached there in the morning at 7:00am yet report was lodged in the night at 9:10 p.m.. This significant delay of almost 14 hours has not been explained by the prosecution. We may assume that the delay was caused by police officials but the testimony of Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh (PW-5) contradicts the prosecutrix regarding time of her entrance in the Police Station. This witness says that prosecutrix reached Police Station at 9:10 p.m. (night) on 13.12.1980. The question is why was this report lodged with this considerable delay ? If the prosecutrix had reached Police Station at 7:00am, then there was no reason for them to record the FIR at 9:10 p.m. in the night. Prosecutrix has said that report was lodged on 13.12.1980, though at one place she even referred date of report as 12.12.1980. But even if it is accepted that the report was lodged on 13.12.1980, that situation is also inconsistent with other documents available on record. Prosecutrix has alleged that she was medically examined on the same day on which report had been lodged and that her statement was recorded next day by the Investigating Officer, meaning thereby that medical examination was conducted on 13.12.1980 i.e. date of report and her statement recorded on 14.12.1980 i.e. next day of FIR. This statement is not supported by record. 20. PW-3 Constable Jashvir Singh has claimed that he took prosecutrix to Female Hospital on 14.12.1980. Dr. Nalini Gaur (PW-2) has also admitted that prosecutrix was examined on 14.12.1980 at 10:45am. This is contrary to the statement of prosecutrix. Similarly, even the date of recording of statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is uncertain. The victim says that her statement was recorded next day of lodging of FIR while Investigating Officer Diwakar Singh says that statement of victim was recorded on 15.12.1980 as investigation itself was entrusted to him on the same day. Therefore, he could not have recorded statement of the victim prior to the entrustment of investigation. PW-1 Diwakar Singh has also disclosed that on 16.12.1980 the statement of mother of victim was recorded yet her mother has not been produced in evidence. Therefore, he could not have recorded statement of the victim prior to the entrustment of investigation. PW-1 Diwakar Singh has also disclosed that on 16.12.1980 the statement of mother of victim was recorded yet her mother has not been produced in evidence. Surprisingly, Investigating Officer did not record statement of victim’s husband or any member of his family during investigation despite the fact that prosecutrix had allegedly been abducted while she was on way to her matrimonial home. Abduction took place at Railway Station and yet not a single statement of any railway employee was recorded. Admittedly, Investigating Officer did not even care to inquire whether prosecutrix was married or not? 21. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court towards admission of prosecutrix where says that she lived with Awadesh alias Suresh, Mithelesh and their mother because she had been lured by them. The exact words used by her are as follows : eS vo/ks'k o feFkys'k o mudh eak ds ikl blfy, :dh D;ksafd eSa bu yksxksa ds pDdj esa vk xbZ FkhA 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the aforesaid sentence discloses that the prosecutrix lived with aforesaid persons of her own volition on account of her unhappiness with her parents and sister Suman and that is why no report of her disappearance was lodged by parents. This suggestion of counsel for appellants cannot ignored. 23. Oral testimony of prosecutrix is also inconsistent with site-plan (Ex Ka-1). Her statement is contradictory to the documentary evidence available on record. She has tried to give graphic description of place which does not find support from the evidence given by police. Prosecution did not care to produce Muslim man in whose room the prosecutrix lived for two months at ‘Turab Ali Ka Purwa’. At one place prosecutrix admitted that no other person visited tubewell behind ‘Turab Ali ka Purwa’ where she was living with Suresh and Awadhesh yet she repeatedly said that she was raped by Raghav as well. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court toward extract of G.D.No. 46 recorded at 9:10 p.m. on 13.12.1980 which has been proved by PW-5 H.C. Rajendra Bahadur Singh (Ex Ka-9). He has submitted that contents of G.D. reflects a different story. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court toward extract of G.D.No. 46 recorded at 9:10 p.m. on 13.12.1980 which has been proved by PW-5 H.C. Rajendra Bahadur Singh (Ex Ka-9). He has submitted that contents of G.D. reflects a different story. Ex Ka-9 discloses that during this period prosecutrix also lived with one Chandrika Passi who also allegedly subjected her to rape. But during the course of trial, name of Chandrika Passi was never mentioned. He was not even arrayed as an accused. The story surfaced from Ex Ka-9. First entry made in this G.D. is completely at variance with the contents of FIR and testimony of prosecutrix. The story of departure with Pramod with consents of parents is totally absent from this entry. Present story accuses four persons while entry made in Ex Ka 9 talks about as many as six persons. This document also talks of medical examination on the next day, contrary to assertion of prosecutrix that medical examination was done on the same day on which FIR was lodged. 25. The record further discloses that at least one accused namely, Awadesh was 15 years of age at the time of incident and therefore, the trial Judge sentenced him for 10 years R.I. only. In fact, trial Judge should have conducted inquiry regarding the age of accused. Pramod disclosed his age as 19 years, Raghav as 20 years, Mithelesh Kumar as 15 years and Awadesh as 18 years. These were disclosed at the time of recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial judge himself considered Mithelesh as minor, therefore, awarded him lesser sentence. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the trial judge to hold the enquiry ascertaining the correct age of all accused/appellants which he did not do. There was no attempt to take any further steps for consideration of plea of juvenality of the appellants. 26. This entire case depends upon solitary testimony of prosecutrix. It is true that solitary testimony of prosecutrix in a case of sexual assault can be the basis for conviction of accused, provided found trustworthy. Facts of this case are rather strange. Of course, it is not necessary to provide supportive evidence in every case of sexual assault but in the instant case, there are several glaring discrepancies. It is true that solitary testimony of prosecutrix in a case of sexual assault can be the basis for conviction of accused, provided found trustworthy. Facts of this case are rather strange. Of course, it is not necessary to provide supportive evidence in every case of sexual assault but in the instant case, there are several glaring discrepancies. A young married girl disappeared with a family friend for around two months and yet no report of disappearance was lodged by parents. There is nothing on record to even demonstrate that accused Pramod was ever questioned by the parents of the prosecutrix. Surprisingly even the husband of prosecutrix at whose request she had been dispatched with appellant Pramod did not inquire about her whereabouts. No report was lodged even by him. The discrepancies regarding timing of report, medical examination and other relevant facts have not been explained. Parents of prosecutrix at least could have supported the initial part of story of prosecution yet parents and husband of prosecutrix neither reported the matter to the Police nor appeared before the trial Court to support her version. Even investigation has been performed in perfunctory manner. The testimony of prosecutrix is not reliable at all. The story given by her and story disclosed in G.D. No. 46 of 13.12.1980 Kotwali Fatehpur (Ex Ka-1) recorded at 9:10 p.m. (Ex Ka-9) are diametrically opposite to each other. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellants as well as sentence awarded to them cannot be sustained. 27. In the result, both appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 7.7.1983 passed by then 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 513 of 1981 (State v. Pramod and others) arising out of Case crime No. 250 of 1980, Police Station Thariyaon. District Fatehpur is set aside. Appellants be set at liberty, if in jail and not wanted in any other case. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 28. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to trial Court for compliance through Sessions Judge, Fatehpur within ten days. Concerned Court shall report compliance within one month thereafter. ———————