Judgment : Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 24.7.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bulandshar in S.T. No. 449 of 2012 (State Vs. Lal Krishna @ Kapoot @ Kapot) arising out of Crime No. 511 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshar, whereby the learned trial court found the accused-appellant guilty under Section 376-D, 363 and 366 I.P.C. and sentenced the accused to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and find of Rs. 30,000/-, under Section 376-D as fine and sentenced the accused for 4 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 363 I.P.C. and further sentenced him to 6 years imprisonment and fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 366 I.P.C. with default stipulation. 2. Filtering out the unnecessary details, the prosecution case in brief is that a report Exhibit Ka-2 was given by the informant Dashrath Prasad in writing stating that he is resident of village Veerkheda, Post-Chandekh, Tehsil-Sikandarabad, District-Bulandshar. His daughter is a student of Class 12 in Maghanand Inter College is aged about 16 years. On 14.9.2011 at 3:00 p.m. when the applicant came up to his house his daughter was missing from the house. When he searched around for his daughter she was not traceable. At this Surendra and Kalu told him that the victim was seen going with Shivam. Shivam had taken away the daughter of the informant. Renu being Shivam's sister used to come to the house of the informant because the victim and Ranu were friends. The victim had taken away five pairs of clothes, 35,000/- rupees cash, a pair of gold ear-rings and a golden chain with her. On the basis of this report investigation was entrusted to S.I. Karmveer Singh on 15.9.2011. He copied the chick report and G.D. in the case diary. Copied the high school certificate of the victim in the case diary. He inspected the spot, prepared the site plan, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-7. Some hearsay evidence was also recorded by him. 3. On 16.9.2011, the statement of witnesses Kalu and Sunita was recorded in the case diary. On 17.9.2011, the statement of witness Mahaveer was recorded in the case diary. On 18.9.2011 the statement of Surendra Sharma was recorded. He inspected the spot, prepared the site plan, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-7. Some hearsay evidence was also recorded by him. 3. On 16.9.2011, the statement of witnesses Kalu and Sunita was recorded in the case diary. On 17.9.2011, the statement of witness Mahaveer was recorded in the case diary. On 18.9.2011 the statement of Surendra Sharma was recorded. On 20.9.2011 a recovery memo relating to the victim was prepared and was proved as Exhibit Ka-8. On the same day the statement of the victim was recorded and she was sent for medical examination to the District Hospital. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which the name of Lal Krishna, S/o Parsadi Lal came into light. After that the medical report and supplementary reports were copied in the case diary. The statement of the victim as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was perused. The victim was given in the custody of her parents. The Supardiginama was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-9. 4. On 6.11.2011 the statement of the witness Lal Krishna was recorded. On 25.11.2011 the statement of accused Shivam was recorded in the Juvenile Home, Meerut. Finally, the charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-10. The victim was medically examined by P.W. 3 Dr. Vandana Sharma, who did not find any mark of injury on her body. Her vagina was admitting two fingers easily. Two slides were prepared about the vaginal smear and sent for pathological examination. The matter was also referred to the C.M.O. for determination of her age. According to the ossification report she was from 16 years to 17 years of age. This witness proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-3 and supplementary report as Exhibit Ka-4. 5. Dr. Dinesh Kumar is P.W. 5, conducted the ossification report and proved it as Exhibit K-6 and the x-ray plate as material Exhibit 1. 6. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. P.W. 1 is the victim who has proved her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka-1. P.W. 2 is the informant Dashrath Prasad, who has proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-2. P.W. 4 is Pinki Sharma, who has proved the age certificate as Exhibit Ka-5. 7. The evidence of P.W. 3 Dr. Vandana Sharma, P.W. 4 Pinki Sharma, P.W. 5 Dr. P.W. 2 is the informant Dashrath Prasad, who has proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-2. P.W. 4 is Pinki Sharma, who has proved the age certificate as Exhibit Ka-5. 7. The evidence of P.W. 3 Dr. Vandana Sharma, P.W. 4 Pinki Sharma, P.W. 5 Dr. Dinesh Kumar and P.W. 6 S.I. Karamveer Singh has been discussed by me. 8. After close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the occurrence and stated that there was enmity between the family of both the parties. He has been falsely implicated in the case with the connivance of Gram Pradhan. However the accused did not produce any evidence in defence. 9. Learned lower court after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record and has passed the impugned judgment and sentenced the accused-appellant. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned trial court. The case of the co-accused Shivam was separated from the main case and his matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgment of the learned lower court is based on conjectures and surmises and the findings have no basis. Hence, the judgment is bad in the eye of law. 12. On the other hand learned A.G.A. has submitted that the findings of the fact recorded by the trial court is based on evidence of the prosecutrix and that no corroboration was required when the testimony of the prosecutrix was clear, cogent and convincing. He has further contended that there was nothing to show that the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. As far as the promptness of the F.I.R. is concerned a perusal of chick report Exhibit Ka-11 shows that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 14.9.201 at about 3:00 a.m. The report was lodged on 15.9.2011 at 11:30 a.m. Distance of the place of occurrence from the police station being 7 kms. Thus, it is clear the report is prompt. 14. Thus, it is clear the report is prompt. 14. Generally, cases of rape, the court does not ponder to find corroboration if the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, 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 for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is no a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony as has been held in Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 508 . The evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence as has been held in Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 1 SCC 220 . 15. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per allegation and statement recorded is Exhibit Ka-1 the only allegation against the present appellant is that the present appellant with the co-accused Shivam picked her up from her house, made her sit on a bike, which was driven by the applicant and she was left at Meerut. The remaining allegation of rape are against the co-accused Shivam, whose matter is not in question before this Court. 16. The remaining allegation of rape are against the co-accused Shivam, whose matter is not in question before this Court. 16. This statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C is merely a previous statement of the victim who has admitted her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, when she was questioned as to why she did not state the name of the present applicant for having raped her, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she replied that she did not do so, because of fear. She has further denied regarding part of her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that when she was giving her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated everything to the Magistrate. If, he had not mentioned, she could not assign any reason for the same. This is indicative of the conduct of the victim. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim is a major and there is no evidence on record that the victim was kidnapped or abducted knowing that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will. As far as the age of the victim is concerned in Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2010 Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows : "....On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining - (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law." Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VW-PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion." 18. In order of preference no academic record relating to the victim is available on record. Thus, the court has to revert back and take aid of the ossification test report which is Exhibit Ka-5 on record. According to which the age of the victim is between 16 years to 17 years. The victim P.W. 1 has stated her age as on 19.7.2012 to be 18 years. In her cross-examination she has specifically stated that her date of birth is 3.7.1994, according to which on the date of occurrence she was 17 years and few months old. Although the father of the victim Dashrath Prashad P.W. 2 has stated that the age of the victim was 16 years. Further as per the record, definitely the victim was above 16 years at the time of the incident. 19. Although the father of the victim Dashrath Prashad P.W. 2 has stated that the age of the victim was 16 years. Further as per the record, definitely the victim was above 16 years at the time of the incident. 19. As far as incident is concerned P.W. 2 Dashrath Prashad has stated that Lalu @ Santosh and Surendra told him that they had seen the victim going away with Shivam and the appellant. Both theses witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution. This witness has stated that his daughter was recovered on 20.9.2011 from the road. He got the information about the recovery of his daughter telephonically. Recovery memo is Exhibit Ka-8. According to which the victim was recovered within Sikandarabad police station-Bulandshar at Jewar Tiraha at 8:10 a.m. Hence even place of recovery is doubtful. As far as occurrence is concerned the victim has changed her statement in every breath. Initial case of the written report is that the informant did not mention from where the victim was taken away either from the house, or from outside the house. But the father of the victim P.W. 2 Dashrath Prashad has stated before the court : ^^tgka yM+dh lks;h gqbZ Fkh ogka pkj cPps vkSj lks;s gq;s FksA ;s cPps --------------ds HkkbZ cgu gSA eSa vkSj esjh iRuh uhps ?kj esa lks;s gq;s FksA pkjks cPps ------------mij Nr ij lks;s gq;s FksA Nr ij Hkh dejs cus gq;s gSA mij tkus ds fy, lhf<+;k dejs ds vUnj cuh gSA ftl le; esjh yM+dh ;gka ls x;h Fkh ml le; mlds cky ugha dVs FksA ftl le; okil vk;h Fkh ml le; mlds cky dVs FksA^^ 20. According to this witness the victim underwent hair cut after she went from the house and before she was recovered. The victim P.W. 1 has denied about her hair cut, which goes to show that the victim is not telling the correct facts. Carrying away a girl of age 16 to 18 years weighing 42 kg. is not digestible. Four other children are said to have been sleeping in the room which was upstairs. The victim P.W. 1 has denied about her hair cut, which goes to show that the victim is not telling the correct facts. Carrying away a girl of age 16 to 18 years weighing 42 kg. is not digestible. Four other children are said to have been sleeping in the room which was upstairs. Two accused persons are said to have brought the victim from amongst her siblings in sleeping condition down from the stair and taking her out from the house is a story which cannot be relied upon because it is not the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were armed. Thus, according to this theory the victim was lifted from her house by both the accused. As regards how she was taken away another story comes forth as stated by the victim P.W. 1 who has stated that on 13.9.2011 at about 10:30 p.m. she had stomachache, hence she went out of house to attend the call of nature, when she was returning home, she met Shivam, who started forcing her suddenly the appellant also came there both forced her to sit on the bike being driven by the appellant. Thus, she has said that she was taken from the path by both the accused. 21. To test the veracity of the witness cross-examination was the best way. P.W. 1 victim has stated that although she had a wash room in her house but she preferred to go out in the fields because she was not in a "Mood" to go in the house. She has further admitted that she had gone to attend the call of nature with her grand mother. She has stated as follows : ^^eSa viuh nknh vEek th dks ysfVz~u tkrs le; crk;k FkkA eSus ;g crk;k Fkk fd eSa ysfVz~u djus ckgj tk jgh gwWA eSaus viuh vEek dks lkFk pyus dks dgk Fkk vEek th esjs lkFk x;h FkhA^^ Why the grand mother of the victim was not produced before the Court is a million dollar question, which remained unanswered. Another reason why I find the statement of this witness to be imaginary and unreliable is that she has specifically said contradicting her own self : ^^eSus eftLVsªV dks ;g c;ku ugha fn;k Fkk fd eq>s 13-9-2011 dks jkr esa 11%30 cts ?kj ij eSa lks jgh Fkh rHkh jkr esa 11%30 cts f'koe o diksr esjs ?kj ij vk;s vkSj esjs mij u'ks dh pht :eky esa j[kdj esjs mij Mkyh fQj eq>s mBk ys x;s fQj dgk fd eSus ;g ;g c;ku eftLVz~sV lkgc dks fn;k FkkA tks eSus vnkyr esa vkt c;ku fn;k gS oks lgh gSA eftLVz~sV lkgc ds ;gka eSus lp cksyk Fkk vkSj c;ku fn;k FkkA fQj dgk fd jkLrs esa feyus dh ckr lgh gS eftLVz~sV ds ;gkW dk c;ku xyr gSA^^ 22. Thus, this is a theory as put forth by the victim to cover a lie. A person has to speak 100 of lies to conceal one lie. If, the victim is would have taken the path of truth there would be minor contradictions in her statements, but in the present case, the victim is fabricating a new story every time. Thus, it has not been established at all whether the victim was missing from her house or from the paths way. I.O. P.W. 6 S.I. Karmveer Singh has stated during his cross-examination that the victim had stated two different things, from where she was kidnapped. During the course of investigation it had come to his knowledge that there were two cases of the prosecution regarding abduction firstly it was said that she was abducted from the way, secondly it was said that she was abducted from her house. This witness has also admitted that during his investigation it came to his notice that the victim had a haircut before her recovery and after the occurrence. 23. Coming to the occurrence P.W. 2 Dashrath Prashad has admitted that the name of the present applicant Kapot does not find place in the F.I.R., Exhibit Ka-2. Trying to explain this P.W. 2 Dashrath Prashad has said that in the date of occurrence, he had mentioned 15.9.2011, but it was wrongly written as 14.9.2011. Further he has stated that she was told by his daughter that both the accused persons had raped her. 24. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that in November, 2011 he married his daughter. Further he has stated that she was told by his daughter that both the accused persons had raped her. 24. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that in November, 2011 he married his daughter. Two months after she delivered a boy. This does not find favour that the medical report inasmuch as the Doctor did not note the pregnancy of the victim. Hence, it appears that this witness is trying to exaggerate the prosecution theory to give weightage to his version. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no reason for the scribe to omit the name of Kapot in the F.I.R., hence the presumption of false implication as and after thought cannot be ruled out: "No doubt, it is well settled principle of law that minor contradictions are bound to occur in the testimony of the natural witnesses as has been held in 1993 L.Cr.R. Page 379, Badri Narain Singh and others vs. State of U.P. In (2010) 1 SCC page 199, Jayabalan vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry, the court took the view that "pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness." 26. Reverting to the statement of the victim P.W. 1 she has stated that on the first occurrence of rape she was taken to Khatauli, where she was kept in a room and raped by both the accused for five days. Both the accused used to threaten her with fire arms. Further she has stated that after five to six days she was made unconscious and brought to Sikandrabad, on the way seeing the police, both the accused fled away. This witness has further stated that she does not know where the Bamba is, but further in her statement she admitted the existence of the Bamba. The victim was knowing that the parents and uncles of Kapot were living in village Veerkheda. Trying to gain sympathy of the court this witness has stated that : ^^tc eSus vnkyr esa c;ku fn;s Fks rc eSa iwjs gks'k gok'k esa Fkh tc iqfyl okyks us c;ku fy;s Fks ml le; eS gks'k esa Fkh vkSj csgks'k Hkh FkhA^^ Now this is the statement which is not easily digestible. Trying to gain sympathy of the court this witness has stated that : ^^tc eSus vnkyr esa c;ku fn;s Fks rc eSa iwjs gks'k gok'k esa Fkh tc iqfyl okyks us c;ku fy;s Fks ml le; eS gks'k esa Fkh vkSj csgks'k Hkh FkhA^^ Now this is the statement which is not easily digestible. Theory of unconsciousness of the victim has also been tried to be introduced by her father P.W. 2 Dashrath Prashad, who has stated that : ^^Fkkuk igqpus ij ogka yM+dh eq>s feyh FkhA yM+dh ml le; csgks'k FkhA csgks'k Fkh ysfdu cSBh gqbZ FkhA^^ 27. The trial court put a question to this witness on which he replied that he does not know the meaning of unconsciousness. When his statement was being recorded in court, he was in his senses when a human being becomes unconscious, he loses his senses, but when the victim reached home, she was conscious. 28. P.W. 1 victim has further stated that she did not take anything from her house, when the accused had taken her from her house. She denied of having given any such statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but there is an averment in the F.I.R. that the victim took five pairs of clothes, 35,000/- rupees cash, one pair golden ear ring and one golden chain with her. If the victim is believed, that she did not carrying anything from her house, then the F.I.R would be proved to be incorrect. This F.I.R. has been corroborated by P.W. 2 Dashrath Prashad who has stated that when his daughter had gone the Almirah were lying open, then he came to know what all his daughter has taken with her. 29. There is no reason, why a father would falsely state in the written report that his daughter took valuables and cash from his house and why even on oath before the trial court he would state such things. Thus, I think that this story is more probable that the victim went on her own accord and took cash and valuables from her house. Thus, the F.IR., statement of father P.W. 2 Dashrath Prashad and daughter P.W. 1 victim are all contradictory and a bundle of incorrect statements. 30. Thus, I think that this story is more probable that the victim went on her own accord and took cash and valuables from her house. Thus, the F.IR., statement of father P.W. 2 Dashrath Prashad and daughter P.W. 1 victim are all contradictory and a bundle of incorrect statements. 30. I.O. S.I. P.W. 6 Karamveer Singh has admitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she had telephone her father, when she was recovered, but he did not prepare any site plan at the pointing out of the victim. In AIR 2008 SC (Supp) page 882 Motilal Vs. State of M.P. law laid down that to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances. There can be no quarrel with this proposition (and it has been so emphasized by this court time and again), but to hold that the prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of all probabilities in her story is an argument that can be never accepted. Test always is as to whether the given story prima facie inspires confidence. 31. Thus, in my opinion, since she as an interested partition and unreliable witness, who was a privy to the whole episode, therefore, to save her skin, she had narrated a fabricated version without lending assurance from any independent source her testimony was insufficient to hold the appellant guilty. As pointed out above, she had changed her version from time to time and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. This she seems to have been done to rectify her mistake committed by a damsel under infatuation, which is in far to perceive. Her hymen was found to be torn and healed with insertion of two fingers easily, which can be taken to be a prima facie evidence, on preponderance of possibility that the victim was used to carnal intercourse. 32. Thus, on the basis what has been stated above, I find that the learned lower court has misled itself in reaching to the conclusion that the accused are guilty for the offence charged. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Hence the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.7.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bulandshar in S.T. No. 449 of 2012 (State Vs. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Hence the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.7.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bulandshar in S.T. No. 449 of 2012 (State Vs. Lal Krishna @ Kapoot @ Kapot) arising out of Crime No. 511 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshar, is hereby set aside. 33. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 34. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith in this case. The provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall be complied with. 35. Let certified copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. ———————