JUDGMENT AND ORDER : A.K. Goswami, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 14/13 whereby the appellants, two in number, were convicted under Section 376/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of 6 months. By the said judgment, the fine amount, if so realized, was directed to be paid to the victim girl. 2. One Md. Abdul Hail Bhuyan filed an Ejahar (Ext.-l) before the Officer-in-charge, Goalpara Police Station on 03.11.2009 stating that his niece, who will be referred to as “X”, who is aged about 15 years, had gone missing from home from 30.10.2009 and while making enquiries, came to learn on that day that at around 9-00 P.M. of 02.11.2009 police had recovered her along with the two appellants at a place called Agia Solmari. It is further stated that on coming to the Police Station, he could learn from his niece that at around 6-00 P.M. of 02.11.2009, the two appellants had, forcefully and against her wish, raped her in the midst of “Salbagan” of Khoridhora and, thereafter, were moving around with her on a bike when police apprehended them. 3. On the basis of the Ejahar, Goalpara Police Station Case No. 438/2009 under Sections 376/34IPC was registered and police started investigation. 4. On 04.11.2009, in G.R. Case No. 1552/2009, corresponding to Goalpara Police Station Case No.438/2009, statement of “X” (Ext.-2) was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet (Ext.-5) on 29.12.2009 under Sections 376/34 IPC against the appellants. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara. committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, and the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Goalpara, for disposal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, charge under Sections 376/34 IPC was framed against the appellants. Charge being read over and explained, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During trial, the prosecution examined 6(six) witnesses while defence adduced no evidence. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. It will be appropriate to take note of the evidence. Charge being read over and explained, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During trial, the prosecution examined 6(six) witnesses while defence adduced no evidence. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. It will be appropriate to take note of the evidence. 7. The victim, “X”, was examined as P W1 on 08.03.2013. By then, she was married. In her deposition, she stated that at the time of the incident she was about 15 years old and was studying in Class-IX and on the day of the occurrence she wanted to go to the residence of her uncle, Imran Ali, at Krishnai Molandubi, and she came out of the house at around 3-00 P.M. After alighting from the bus, she was proceeding on foot to the residence of her uncle and, then, two unknown boys volunteered to take her to her uncle's house in a bike which was with them. She stated that she had declined to go with them and then they forcefully made her sit on the bike. They did not take her to Molandubi and instead took a different road. She was taken to an isolated jungle and the said two persons forcibly committed rape on her one after another, first, by Rintu Ali (he was pointed out by “X”) and, thereafter, by the other person. Though she had raised hue and cry, nobody came as there was no residence nearby. After they had forcibly committed sexual intercourse, they wanted to take her towards Goalpara side to which she objected. But they forcefully made her sit on the bike between them and as they were riding, police of Agia caught them and it was night at that time. She deposed that she had told the police personnel about the incident and, thereafter, on being telephonically informed, police from Goalpara took them away and, on the next day, the police had her medically examined by a doctor. She deposed in respect of giving statement before the Magistrate (Ext.-2). She also, by pointing out towards appellant No.2 slated that he had first met her and, thereafter, he had called the other accused and thereat after both of them had forcibly taken her away on the bike. 8. In cross-examination, she stated that though she did not remember the date of occurrence, she had informed her parents before going to Krishnai. 8. In cross-examination, she stated that though she did not remember the date of occurrence, she had informed her parents before going to Krishnai. She had gone alone and there were a large number of people where she had got down from the bus at Krishnai Bazaar. Near the market, the accused persons proposed to drop her in her uncle's place and she had then raised hue and cry and had stated that she was not going with them. Though there were shops and a good number of people present, none of them came forward. She stated that she did not know the accused persons and the other person came there after about five minutes of the making of the call by the person who met her first and, during this period, she had not talked to any other people though she had created hulla when she was made to sit on the bike. But nobody came because she was made to sit on the bike a little distance away from the bazaar. She also stated that there were people on the road and people had seen her being made to sit on the bike. While coming back, they had crossed Krishnai bazaar and at that time there were no people in the bazaar. On further cross-examination on 24.06.2014, she stated that she had not met any known person and the accused had met her after she had walked for about two minutes after alighting from the bus. She was taken to a jungle behind the high school and they were there for about half an hour and thereafter, she was taken to the National Highway through a different road and they were caught by police in the night of occurrence about two minutes prior to reaching Agia. 9. P W2 is the informant. He deposed that “X”, who was a student of Class-IX, had gone to the residence of her uncle at Krishnai. He deposed that he had scolded her as she had come early from school and then without telling anybody, she left for her uncle's house at Krishnai. 9. P W2 is the informant. He deposed that “X”, who was a student of Class-IX, had gone to the residence of her uncle at Krishnai. He deposed that he had scolded her as she had come early from school and then without telling anybody, she left for her uncle's house at Krishnai. At night, he received information from Goalpara Police Station that his niece is in the police station and, accordingly, he went there and on enquiries made, she told him that two boys had forcefully picked her up on a bike and had sexually assaulted her in the jungle behind Krishnai College. There were stains in the wearing apparel and they were also slightly torn and, thereafter, he lodged the Ejahar (Ext.-l). He had seen the boys in the police lock-up. Police had informed him that the girl and the boys were apprehended at Salbori. 10. In his cross-examination, PW2 had admitted that he had not told police that he had scolded the victim on the date of occurrence and that the victim was going to the house of her uncle at Krishnai. He also affirmed that no Ejahar was lodged looking for the girl. He also stated about his coming to the police station with Imran Ali (PW4), who was then residing at Karaikhuwa. 11. PW3 is the elder brother of the informant, PW2, and father of the victim, PW1. He deposed that his daughter, at the time of the occurrence, was a Class-IX student and aged about 15 years. He did not see his daughter in the evening after coming back from work and when he enquired of his wife, he came to learn that she had gone to the house of Imran (PW4) at Krishnai. At around 8:30/9:00 PM, Goalpara police telephoned to inform that PW1 and two boys had been caught by police at Krishnai. He went to the police station on the next day and saw them there. His daughter informed him that when she alighted from the bus to go to the house of her uncle at Krishnai Molandubi, the boys had forcefully made her sit on the bike and had taken her away to the jungle behind Krishnai College, where the boys raped her. 12. His daughter informed him that when she alighted from the bus to go to the house of her uncle at Krishnai Molandubi, the boys had forcefully made her sit on the bike and had taken her away to the jungle behind Krishnai College, where the boys raped her. 12. In cross-examination, PW3 stated that he had gone out of the house on the day of the occurrence at about 7:00 AM and PW1 was at home at that time. He could not say how old was his eldest daughter at that time and stated that the victim girl was his second child. 13. PW4 is the person to whose residence the victim had stated she was going. He stated that he, at the time of the incident, was residing at Krishnai Molandubi. The informant was the brother of his wife and at around 10:00 PM he was informed by Goalpara police that the victim was at the police station. Thereafter, he informed PW2. On the next day, he saw PW1 and the two accused persons whom he had not seen earlier. He stated that on enquiries being made, she informed that at around 4-00 P.M., while she was proceeding towards his house after getting down from the bus, the accused persons had forcefully picked her up and made her sit on their bike saying that they would drop her at his residence but, instead, they took her to a jungle where they committed rape on her and, later on, police caught her and the accused persons. 14. In cross-examination he stated that he had gone to the police station on the next day of the occurrence. He stated that he had told police that his place of residence is Karai-kliuwa and that the distance between Krishnai and Karwaikhuwa would be about 25 Kilometers. 15. PW5 was the in-charge of Agia Police Outpost on 03.11.2009 and he had investigated the offence. He stated that he seized a bike from accused No. 1 vide Ext.-3 and registration certificate of the bike, Ext.-4. He also deposed that he had submitted charge-sheet, Ext.-5. 16. In his cross-examination, PW5 stated that he did not seize any wearing apparel of the victim and the accused persons were detained without any complaint. It was further stated by him that at the time of taking statement of Imran Ali (PW4), he was residing at Karaikhuwa. He also deposed that he had submitted charge-sheet, Ext.-5. 16. In his cross-examination, PW5 stated that he did not seize any wearing apparel of the victim and the accused persons were detained without any complaint. It was further stated by him that at the time of taking statement of Imran Ali (PW4), he was residing at Karaikhuwa. He also deposed that he had not taken statement of any person of Krishnai though he had inspected the place of occurrence, where there was no habitation. 17. PW6 is the Medical Officer who had examined the victim at 12-30 P.M. on the basis of a police requisition in connection with a GD Entry No. 56 dated 03.11.2009. He deposed that X-ray of right wrist joint, right elbow joint and right iliac crest show that age of the victim was below 18 years. There was no sign of recent sexual intercourse or violence on the private parts. He had proved the medical report as Ext.-6. He further stated that the victim was having menstrual bleeding and vaginal pool collected and examined showed only red blood corpuscles. He also deposed that hymen was absent and vagina admitted two fingers. In cross-examination, he deposed that age of the girl might be above 16 years also. 18. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the Ejahar, PW 1 was missing from 30.10.2009. However, there is no explanation as to what had happened up to the alleged date of occurrence on 02.11.2009 and in absence of' any plausible explanation, conviction on the basis of the sole testimony of PW 1 cannot be sustained. It is submitted by him that it is permissible to base conviction on the basis of such testimony of the victim if the evidence of the victim inspires confidence. However, in the instant case, the evidence of PW 1 is not at all reliable and the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. It is also submitted by him that prosecution story is inherently improbable and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 541 , and in the case of Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 . 19. Mr. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 541 , and in the case of Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 . 19. Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and there is no reason why the evidence of P W1 should not be believed. It is submitted by him that merely because medical examination of PW1 did not indicate recent sexual intercourse, the same cannot be a ground to disregard the clear and convincing testimony of P W1 and, therefore, no interference is called for with regard to the impugned judgment. In support of his submission, Mr. Kamar has placed reliance on the cases of Ranjit Hazarika v. Stale of Assam, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635 and Rahanuddin @ Kuki (Md.) & Am. v. Slate of Assam, reported in 2013 (4) GLT 455. 20. In Narendra Kumar (supra), the Apex Court had ruled that court must appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation. When the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecutrix's case becomes liable to be rejected. In the said case, the court rejected the deposition of the prosecutrix as her deposition did not inspire confidence and the prosecution had not disclosed the true genesis of the crime. The prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. It is held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. 21. In Mussauddin Ahmed (supra), on the basis of the evidence on record, the Apex Court allowed the appeal of the convict as there were material contradictions regarding factual aspects of the incident itself and as there was no explanation why material objects like clothes, which, according to the prosecutrix, had been forcibly tom, were not seized as well as for non-examination of any person from the hotel where the prosecutrix was allegedly raped. 22. 22. In Ranjit Hazarika (supra), the Apex Court highlighted the proposition that the prosecutrix of a sex offence is a victim of a crime and not an accomplice and it is not the requirement of law that her testimony cannot be accepted unless corroborated. In Rahanuddin (supra), this Court reiterated that if the victim's evidence inspires confidence, conviction can be recorded on the basis of her sole testimony. 23. Rape is not only a crime against a victim but is also a crime against the society. The court, therefore, shoulders a great responsibility and it has to deal with a case involving offence of rape with utmost sensitivity. The court should examine the broader probabilities of a case and minor contradictions or discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, will not warrant rejection of an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 24. It is a settled proposition of law that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Court to look for corroboration of her statement. However, while it is true that in a case of rape the evidence of a prosecutrix must be given primacy and predominant consideration, to hold that the evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would run counter to the principles which govern appreciation of evidence. Even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove and such onus never shifts. No duty is cast on the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witnesses have falsely implicated the accused. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by adducing reliable evidence. 25. In the instant case, going by the prosecution case itself, as disclosed in the Ejahar, PW1 was missing from home from 30.10.2009. Materials on record demonstrate that PW1 met the appellants on 02.11.2009 at around 3:30- 4:00 PM after she had got down from the bus at Krishnai. P W2 had stated that on 02.11.2009 itself she had come out of the house. Materials on record demonstrate that PW1 met the appellants on 02.11.2009 at around 3:30- 4:00 PM after she had got down from the bus at Krishnai. P W2 had stated that on 02.11.2009 itself she had come out of the house. PW3 also stated that he had come to learn from his wife that PW1 had gone to the house of PW4 at Krishnai. P W2, the informant, did not depose in his examination-in-chief that P W1 had gone missing on 30.10.2009 and stated that on the day of occurrence, i.e. on 02.11.2009, she had gone out as he had scolded her for coming home from school early. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that he had not stated so before police. In her evidence, PW1 did not talk about any scolding by PW2. However, in her Section 164 CrPC statement (Ext.-2), she had stated that PW2 had scolded her for coming home early from school, when her father, PW3, intervened and told PW2 to take her to task in the evening as it would look bad if PW1 is scolded or beaten up during day time, hearing which she got frightened and, therefore, she left home to go to her uncle's (Khura - father's brother) house at Krishnai. In her Section 164 CrPC statement she had stated that after the accused had raped her and were coming back with her from the jungle, some CRPF personnel found them and, on interrogation, as no satisfactory replies could be given, the CRPF personnel informed the police, who brought them to police station. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had informed her parents while she had left for Krishnai, which is belied by the evidence of her father, PW3, who stated that he came to learn that PW1 had gone to Krishnai from his wife. PW2 had also deposed that she had come out of house without informing anybody. There is also material contradiction with regard to the place of rape as while PW1 stated that the incident took place behind the jungle of high school, PW2, PW3 had referred the place of occurrence as behind Krishnai College. 26. During trial, prosecution had shifted the stand and had given a total go by to the case projected in the Ejahar that PW1 had gone missing on 30.10.2009. The case projected in trial was that on 02.11.2009 only, she had left the house. 26. During trial, prosecution had shifted the stand and had given a total go by to the case projected in the Ejahar that PW1 had gone missing on 30.10.2009. The case projected in trial was that on 02.11.2009 only, she had left the house. This assumes great significance and raises doubt about the genesis of the prosecution case. 27. According to PW 1, she got down from the bus at around 3:30-4:00 PM and when she along with the accused were apprehended by CRPF personnel, it was almost 9:00 PM. She had also stated that they were in the jungle for about half an hour. The intervening period of almost five hours had remained unexplained but it appears that they had been moving around on the bike, which event is also stated in the Ejahar. It is also to be noted that CRPF personnel stopped them when they were all on the bike. GD Entry' recorded, which is reflected in the medical report, containing the first information after CRPF personnel informed Goalpara Police is not exhibited. In the Case Diary also, it is fairly submitted by Mr. Kamar, that extract of the GD Entry) is not found. 28. If the substratum of the prosecution case is found to be wholly reliable and the evidence of the victim is found convincing and inspiring, it will not be necessary for the Court to go on looking for corroborating evidence. However, in the instant case, as there is a clear departure from the initial stand that P W1 had gone missing on 30.11.2009, the Court will be justified to look for corroboration of the evidence of PW1 as the evidence of PW1, in totality, is not of vintage quality eliminating the necessity' to seek corroboration. 29. Court is not unmindful of the fact that P W1 was around 15 years of age at the time of occurrence. Even if there was consent of PW1, it would have been inconsequential having regard to her age. The PW.1 was examined at 12:30 PM, within eight hours of the alleged occurrence. Medical evidence goes to show that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse. While PW2 stated that there were stains in the wearing apparel of P W1 and he noticed that the same was tom, inexplicably, garments were not seized. The PW.1 was examined at 12:30 PM, within eight hours of the alleged occurrence. Medical evidence goes to show that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse. While PW2 stated that there were stains in the wearing apparel of P W1 and he noticed that the same was tom, inexplicably, garments were not seized. PW1 was having her menstruation cycle and again, the appellants were not medically examined although they were in the police station itself. 30. PW4, to whose residence at Krishnai the PW1 was going, had stated before the police that he was a resident of Karaikhowa at the time of occurrence. If that be so, the statements given by the prosecution witnesses that the victim was going to the residence of PW4 at Krishnai, which is about 25 Kms. distance apart do not inspire confidence. PW4 had stated that P W2 is his wife’s brother but in Section 164 CrPC statement, PW1 had stated that she was going to her Khura's (father's brother) place, which is a totally different kind of relationship. On top of it, PW 1 had also stated that she did know the name of the uncle. The aforesaid materials on record make a serious dent in the prosecution case. 31. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that there were a large number of people and shops in the market place when PW1 had raised hue and cry when she was forced to ride on the bike. Non-examination of any of the persons, like shopkeepers, is a serious lacunae in the prosecution case. At the cost of repetition, the Court observes that if the evidence of prosecutrix would have been found to be totally inspiring and free from any blemish, the fact that there was lop-sided investigation by the police would not have mattered. But in a case where Court is put to a position to look for corroboration, these issues come to the fore. 32. No doubt, the appellants were found with PW 1. That by itself will not lead to an inference that they had committed rape upon PW1. 33. On a totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to the Court that prosecution has not disclosed the true genesis of the crime. 32. No doubt, the appellants were found with PW 1. That by itself will not lead to an inference that they had committed rape upon PW1. 33. On a totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to the Court that prosecution has not disclosed the true genesis of the crime. The given facts and circumstances make it clear that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of the circumstances, her deposition does not inspire confidence. In such a situation, the appellants become entitled to the benefit of doubt. 34. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside and the appellants are set at liberty. Their bail bonds stand discharged. 35. Registry will send back the LCR.