Judgment : Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and order dated 22.7.2015 passed by Ram Kesh Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rampur in S.T. No.173 of 2012 (State Vs. Ravindra Singh and others) arising out of Crime No. 753 of 2011 under Sections 452, 323, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kaimari, District Rampur whereby Netra Pal and Pappu were not found guilty of offences punishable under Section 452, 376 (2), 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and were acquitted of the same. The accused Ravindra Singh was also not found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and acquitted of the same whereas Ravindra Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution story as unfolded by the prosecution is that a written report was submitted by the victim that six months prior to the occurrence, the accused appellant Ravindra had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from her. On the next day, the informant demanded her money at which the appellant did not pay and made false excuses. On 13.10.2011 again the victim demanded her money at which the appellant stated that her money would be repaid in the night. On 13.10.2011 at night the husband of the victim had gone to the mill to do the work of labourer to stitch gunny bags. She was sleeping alone in her house. Suddenly, the accused Ravinder, Netra Pal and Pappu entered her house at midnight. Abusing the victim, they assaulted the victim with legs and fists on account of which she sustained invisible injuries on her head and hands. Ravindra dragged her on the bed and raped her. After that, Netra Pal also raped her. Co-accused Pappu gagged her mouth with a handkerchief so that she could not shout. When the accused persons came out of the house of the victim, she raised hue and cry at which Shahid, Parashuram and others came, who saw the accused persons and saved the victim. The accused shouted that if victim would lodge the report, she would be killed. When the accused persons came out of the house of the victim, she raised hue and cry at which Shahid, Parashuram and others came, who saw the accused persons and saved the victim. The accused shouted that if victim would lodge the report, she would be killed. In the morning, the informant went to the police station to lodge the report but her report was not lodged, hence, she moved an application to the S.S.P., Rampur. 3. On 14.10.2011, on the basis of the F.I.R., Head Moharrir, P.W.5 Nafees Ahmad scribed the chik report and proved it as Ext. Ka-10. On the basis of this chik report, he scribed G.D. and proved its copy as Ext. Ka-11. Investigation was entrusted to P.W. 4 S.I. Satish Chandra Sharma. He copied the F.I.R. and G.D. in case diary and recorded the statement of the victim in the case diary. On 16.10.2011, he inspected the spot at the pointing out of the victim and prepared the site plan and proved it as Ext. Ka-7. On 18.10.2011, the medical report of the victim was received, which was copied in the case diary. On 19.10.2011, supplementary statement of Kaushalya was recorded. On 22.10.2011, the report was submitted for recording the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Later on statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was copied by this witness in the case diary. Finally, on 30.10.2011, the accused was arrested. On 5.11.2011, the statements of Parashuram and Shahid were recorded in the case diary. Finally, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons, which was proved as Ext. Ka-8 and Ka-9. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. P.W. 1 is the victim, who has proved the written report Ext. Ka-1 and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka-2. P.W. 2 is Shahid, who is said to be a witness, who has seen the accused coming out of the house of the victim after raping her. P.W. 3 is Dr. J. Pant who has medically examined the victim. He did not find any external injury on the body of the victim. He further referred her for pathologist for examination of vaginal smear and for X-ray to determine her age. P.W. 3 is Dr. J. Pant who has medically examined the victim. He did not find any external injury on the body of the victim. He further referred her for pathologist for examination of vaginal smear and for X-ray to determine her age. In the pathology report, no spermatozoa was found in the slide and age of the victim was opined to be 38 years. This witness proved the medical report as Ext.Ka-3 and supplementary report as Ext. Ka-4, pathological report as Ext. Ka-5 and X-ray report as Ext. Ka 6. P.W.4 is S.I. Satish Chandra Sharma, whose evidence has already been discussed. P.W. 5 is Mohd. Nafees Ahmad whose evidence has also been discussed. P.W. 6 is Hari Ram, the husband of the victim. 5. After examining these witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence and recorded statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-appellant Ravindra Kumar while denying the allegations has stated that the dispute took place between the Children of the victim and the children of the accused and the victim to save her children, has filed a false report against the accused persons. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned lower court acquitted all the accused persons except accused appellant Ravindra, who was convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Judgment, however, he was acquitted for all the remaining charges. Feeling aggrieved the accused appellant has come up in the present appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record. 8. As far as the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, perusal of the chik report reveals that the occurrence is said to have been taken place on 13.10.2011 at mid-night whereas the report was lodged on 15.10.2011 at 12.45 hours, the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being three kilometers. Perusal of the Ext. Ka-1 written report is very important inasmuch as, according to its written report, it was submitted to the S.S.P. on 14.10.2011. A perusal of the written report makes it clear that the occurrence took place between the night of 13/14.10.2011 because on 13.10.2011, according to the victim, she demanded her money. Perusal of the Ext. Ka-1 written report is very important inasmuch as, according to its written report, it was submitted to the S.S.P. on 14.10.2011. A perusal of the written report makes it clear that the occurrence took place between the night of 13/14.10.2011 because on 13.10.2011, according to the victim, she demanded her money. The report has been submitted to the S.S.P. on 14.10.2011 but, in the report itself, the informant has stated that, in the morning, when she went to the police station Kaimari, her report was not lodged. This aspect of the matter has to be considered from the statements of the victim and her husband. The victim (P.W.1) has stated that when her report was not lodged at Police Station Kaimari on the next day, she got an application typed which was given to the S.S.P., Rampur. Thus, there is contradiction in the F.I.R. and the statement of the victim. 9. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this is a case of sole testimony of the prosecutrix who is an interested witness, hence, her evidence cannot be relied upon. 10. 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 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. 11. Generally, in 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 not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions are 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. Minor contradictions are 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 . 12. 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 persons even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence as has been held in Suresh N. Bhusare & others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 1 SCC 220 . 13. Thus, if the evidence of the prosecutrix is trustworthy, reliable and worthy of credence, the Court does not try to find corroboration to her statement. The conduct of this witness (P.W.1) has to be looked into. Inasmuch as her husband (P.W.6) Hari Ram has stated that he and the victim had a daughter named Sandhya who was married one year back. The victim had come to attend the marriage of her daughter meaning thereby that this witness, namely, the victim was living elsewhere. Further this witness has stated, ^^esjh yMdh dh ckjkr vkus okyh FkhA ml fnu 'kke dks gh --------- vk;h FkhA ---------- ds vkus ds ckn rhu ?k.Vs ckn ckjkr vk;h FkhA -------------fnYyh esa jgrh gSA fnYyh ls ml fnu vk;h FkhA yMdh dks fonk djds ----------- vxys fnu lqcg fnYyh pyh x;hA^^ 14. He has further admitted that the accused Ravindra is his maternal uncle's son. He although is the husband of the victim but in cross-examination has stated that he does not know as to in which factory his wife works in Delhi. He does not even know where she lives in Delhi. 15. He has further admitted that the accused Ravindra is his maternal uncle's son. He although is the husband of the victim but in cross-examination has stated that he does not know as to in which factory his wife works in Delhi. He does not even know where she lives in Delhi. 15. Victim (P.W.1) has stated that she had come from Delhi to give her evidence. She works in a factory in Delhi but does not know the name of the factory. She is living for the last 30 months in Delhi. In a previous statement, she has stated that she is living in her mother's house for one and half years. Victim (P.W.1) has stated that Ravindra had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from her. On the day of incidence at about mid night, Ravindra, Pappu and Netra Pal entered in her house. They abused her, assaulted her with legs and fists and thereafter, she was raped by Ravindra and Netra Pal while Pappu gagged her mouth with handkerchief. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that a typed report was not placed before her and she does not what typist had typed in the written report. Further she has stated first she was assaulted and then was raped. Initially, she was raped by one accused while the other was guarding at door. After that other accused raped her. Undergoing the test of cross-examination, this witness has stated her mouth was gagged and her eyes were also closed. It is not clear as to why her eyes were closed. She has stated that she bleeded from her private parts but this is not being supported by the medical evidence. She has further stated that the accused were going out when the witnesses came but improving her version in her next breath, she has stated that the accused persons were out of the house when the witnesses came and she had no door in her house. 16. P.W.6 Hari Ram has stated that when the victim was being raped, her younger son Vivek was present in the house with the victim but as per the statement of the victim, she was alone in the house. The victim has not stated as to where Vivek was at the time of occurrence whereas her husband Hari Ram (P.W.6) certifies the presence of his son Vivek in the house at the time of occurrence. The victim has not stated as to where Vivek was at the time of occurrence whereas her husband Hari Ram (P.W.6) certifies the presence of his son Vivek in the house at the time of occurrence. Although in statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.Ka-2), the victim has stated that her younger child was present in the house. But why this child was not produced is a question which remains unanswered. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she wants to get her case finished because the family members of the accused persons are apologizing and she has no one to do pairokari on her behalf. No doubt the court would not have sought for corroboration of the statement of the victim if the victim would have been alone at the time of occurrence but since her evidence is shaky and in contradiction to her husband's version, it would have been better if the prosecution would have produced Vivek the son of the victim who is said to be present at the time of occurrence because the age of Vivek is said to be 10 years which could definitely have been produced to give evidence. 17. As per prosecution case, although Shahid P.W. 2 is not an eye witness but as per prosecution version and the statement of the prosecutrix P.W.1 he came immediately after the incident when the accused were fleeing away from the place of occurrence. But, Shahid (P.W.2) has specifically stated that on 13.10.2011 neither he went to the house of the victim nor saw the accused persons near her house. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution who was cross-examined by the prosecution. In fact he has stated that he does not know the victim or the accused persons. 18. The ocular evidence does not find support from the medical evidence inasmuch as the doctor did not find any mark of injury over the perineum and although the victim was examined by the doctor on 15.10.2011, the doctor did not notice any marks of bleeding from her private parts. 18. The ocular evidence does not find support from the medical evidence inasmuch as the doctor did not find any mark of injury over the perineum and although the victim was examined by the doctor on 15.10.2011, the doctor did not notice any marks of bleeding from her private parts. The Investigating Officer Satish Chandra Sharma (P.W.4) has stated that the informant promised to give her the clothes which she was wearing at the time of occurrence but she failed to do so and the reason for not giving clothes to the Investigation Officer was that her clothes had been burnt by her family members since they were annoyed with her. The prosecutrix is a married lady with four children. It is astonishing that Investigating Officer did not record the statement of Hari Ram, husband of the victim, as regards the occurrence is concerned. 19. Thus, from the statement of the prosecutrix coupled with statements of other witnesses, it appears that the victim narrated a fabricated version and without lending assurance from independent source, her testimony alone was insufficient to hold the appellant guilty. 20. Thus, the evidence of the victim (P.W.1), P.W. 2 Shahid and P.W.6 Hari Ram do not go to prove the case against the appellant. The evidence of the victim is shaky, unreliable and unworthy of credence and in view of this, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order dated 22.7.2015 passed by Ram Kesh singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rampur in S.T. No.173 of 2012, State Vs. Ravindra Singh and others arising out Crime No. 753 of 2011 under Sections 452, 323, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kaimari, District Rampur whereby the present appellant has been convicted, is hereby set aside. 22. The accused is in jail. He shall be released forthwith in this case. The provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Shall be complied with. ———————