JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.2012 and 31.03.2012 respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Jalpaiguri in Session Case No. 134 of 2010, the convict/appellant has filed this appeal and prayed for setting aside the said impugned judgment and order of conviction. 2. According to the appellant, learned Trial Court did not consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives, and that the Learned Court below failed to take into account the omissions and contradictions of the prosecution witnesses in its letter and spirit. According to him, the alleged offences have not at all been proved. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state/respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been dealt with by the learned Trial Court correctly and accordingly the impugned judgment and order of conviction are totally unimpeachable. 4. This Court is called upon to answer if the impugned judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is justified or not. 5. In the interest of effective adjudication prosecution case is required to be looked into. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that in such cases anonymity of the victim has to be maintained and, therefore, this Court intends to use the word “victim” instead of using her real name. 6. Sieving out unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated form is such that on 21st March, 2007, the defacto complainant had lodged a missing diary contending inter alia that his niece (victim) aged about 13 years was missing. On 26th March, 2007, he came to know from one Gokul Roy, who happens to be rickshaw puller, that his niece was taken away by the present appellant, who is the daughter of one Giyasuddin. According to the said Gokul Roy, he had plied the rickshaw wherein the victim and Chandni were sitting. They got down from the rickshaw near Howrah Petrol Pump at Siliguri. Since the victim was missing the defacto complainant drew the attention of the ‘Mahila Samiti’. According to the said Gokul Roy, he had plied the rickshaw wherein the victim and Chandni were sitting. They got down from the rickshaw near Howrah Petrol Pump at Siliguri. Since the victim was missing the defacto complainant drew the attention of the ‘Mahila Samiti’. The said members of ‘Mahila Samiti’ went to the house of the appellant and challenged the appellant and at that time she confessed that she took the victim and handed over to a woman namely Rajani Khatoon with an intention to sell her. Disclosing this ill-episode the defacto complainant lodged the F.I.R. and in this way law was set into motion. 7. The defence case as it appears to me from the trend of cross-examination and examination of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is her innocence and that she has been falsely implicated. 8. However, after registration of F.I.R., the prosecuting agency came into operation. In course of investigation, Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the available witnesses, sent the victim to Court for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., collected medical report of the victim along with ossification test report sent the vaginal swab to FSL and after getting the report from the FSL, he had submitted charge-sheet under Section 363/366-A/372 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, the learned Trial Court, on perusal of the materials in case diary, framed the charges under the aforesaid sections. The said charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. This gave rise the occasion to adjudicate the sessions trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. Since the witnesses are the eyes and ears of the justice and so this Court wants to hear them. P.W. 1 is Subhash Roy, who happens to be the uncle of the victim. According to him, the victim was aged about 13 years at the relevant point of time. On 26th March, 2007 she was suddenly missing and a missing diary was lodged. Thereafter, he came to know from one Gokul Roy (rickshaw puller) that the victim and the appellant boarded in his rickshaw and as per direction of the appellant he took them near Howrah Petrol Pump at Siliguri. On 26th March, 2007 she was suddenly missing and a missing diary was lodged. Thereafter, he came to know from one Gokul Roy (rickshaw puller) that the victim and the appellant boarded in his rickshaw and as per direction of the appellant he took them near Howrah Petrol Pump at Siliguri. He had reported the incident to members of the ‘Mahila Samiti’, who went to the spot for recovering the victim. They interrogated the appellant and this time the appellant disclosed where the victim was kept. Thereafter, the victim came back from a multi-storied building to her own house. According to him, the victim was there for about 13 days. In course of cross-examination he stuck to his own views. There is nothing in his cross-examination which can render any sort of help to the appellant. 11. P.W. 2 is the victim herself. She has narrated whole story which exactly tallies with the F.I.R. She has also stated that the rickshaw puller was one Gokul Roy and the appellant had taken away her from her residence by making a false representation that her grandmother was waiting near Howrah Petrol Pump at Siliguri. But after reaching there, the victim did not find her grandmother, on the contrary she found that one person came there, who had given some amount of money to the appellant. She had insisted the appellant to bring her back at Salugara, but her such request received cold reception. She was kept in a room for about 13 days. One woman used to serve food upon her through a window. However, she managed to come out of that room after 13 days and when she began to cry near a rickshaw stand one rickshaw puller took her to her grandmother’s house. She has also categorically stated that she has given statement to the learned Magistrate, who had recorded her statement. In course of cross-examination, she had submitted that the appellant had given a chocolate and after having that chocolate she felt drowsiness. She has candidly stated that she has narrated the whole story to the Investigating Officer. In course of cross-examination, she remained firm and the defence could not shake her evidence in any way. 12. P.W. 3 is Gokul Roy, who is rickshaw puller by profession. On the fateful day, he had taken the victim and the appellant to Howrah Petrol Pump at Siliguri by his rickshaw. In course of cross-examination, she remained firm and the defence could not shake her evidence in any way. 12. P.W. 3 is Gokul Roy, who is rickshaw puller by profession. On the fateful day, he had taken the victim and the appellant to Howrah Petrol Pump at Siliguri by his rickshaw. 13. P.W. 4 is the aunt of the victim she also supported the prosecution story and in course of cross-examination she has stated, that she derived her such knowledge from the victim. 14. P.W. 5 has received the written complaint and after putting his endorsement in the said complaint, he has also prepared formal F.I.R. He did not have any personal knowledge regarding the alleged incident. 15. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer of this case and in his examination in chief he categorically stated that he has collected FSL report, medical examination report and, thereafter, he has submitted charge-sheet. 16. P.W. 7 is the grandmother of the victim. She has also disclosed the prosecution story. The defence could not elicit anything in their favour in course of cross-examination of this P.W.7. 17. P.W. 8 is the part Investigating Officer, who has recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the appellant. He had sent the victim for recording the statement. He was not cross-examined in regard to substantial part of the prosecution case. These are the sum and substance of the prosecution story. 18. At the time of argument learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that there is no substantial evidence that the victim was a minor at the relevant point of time. According to him, no birth certificate was produced in support of her age. It seems to me that his such submission does not have any oxygen. Ossification test report is there, which speaks that at the relevant point of time the victim was aged about 14 years. If the benefit of two years is given to the accused/appellant in that case victim was aged about 16 years. Therefore, non-production of birth certificate is inconsequential, when medical report based on scientific method speaks that she was a minor. It was also contended that there are enormous omissions and contradictions in their testimony and the benefit would go in favour of the accused. Therefore, non-production of birth certificate is inconsequential, when medical report based on scientific method speaks that she was a minor. It was also contended that there are enormous omissions and contradictions in their testimony and the benefit would go in favour of the accused. At the time of argument learned Lawyer for the appellant wanted to high light some variations, omissions and contradictions in the evidence and submitted that the benefit should go in favour of the accused. It would not be out of place to mention that credibility of the testimony depends much on judicial evaluation of totality and not on isolated scrutiny. Omission to state a fact or circumstances, in the statement referred to under Section 162(1) of the Cr.P.C. may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context for which such omission occurs. Whether any omission amounts to contradiction in the pretext is purely a question of fact. The court has to circumspect the facts, consider the common course of natural events, human conduct and thereafter, consider whether it is material or significant and whether it is best fitted with the circumstances or not. It is the guideline of the Hon’ble Apex Court that even if a person does not say a particular thing before the police officer, he may say that fact before the court. If such statement is trustworthy in that case, there is no legal embargo on the part of the court to accept that version. This court may rely on the decision reported in 2003 SCC (Criminal) page 170 (Alamgir Vs. State of N.C.T. Delhi). This court is not oblivious to the fact that sometime witnesses are overawed with the court atmosphere and sometime swayed away by sugar coated artful advocacy. 19. Regarding discrepancies it is made crystal clear by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2002 Crl.L.J. Page 2645, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “in a case of discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders the court should not attempt to jump over the same.” In this instant case there is a very minor discrepancy, so I can tread upon it. I am not at all interested to allow the truth to be scarified at the altar of hyper technicality by making the society as a casualty. 20. It was also argued that all the witnesses are relative-witnesses and so their evidence has to be discarded. I am in respectful disagreement with him on this point. There is no legal canon that evidence of relative witnesses have to be disbelieved. It is a rule of caution that their evidence has to be seriously scrutinized. After all relative witnesses are the best persons to see that real culprit be brought to book. 21. Learned Defence Counsel made forceful submission as to rendering of benefit of doubt. This legal phrase has stolen away many valuable judicial hours of the judges, law-lovers and law-thinkers. It would be an auto limitation if anybody ventures to define it. Ratiocination of the following cases reported in AIR 1978 (Supreme Court) page 1097, AIR 1988 (Supreme Court) page 1998 (1994) 1 HCC page 73 are “so long many chaffs, cloud, dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective umbrella to receive benefit of doubt. The duty of the court within its permissible limit is to find out the truth”. The court should not lose sight of reality of life, robust common sense and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by giving elasticity to the phrase ‘benefit of doubt’. On perusal of the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the case to the best judicial satisfaction of this Court. 22. Therefore, after going through the entire evidence and the impugned judgment, I do not find any irregularity and illegality that has been committed by the learned Trial Court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is totally unimpeachable. Accordingly, this Court has no option left with except to put a seal of approval in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal fails. The judgment of the learned Trial Court is hereby upheld. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant be set off accordingly. The learned Trial Court shall take appropriate step to send the appellant to jail for serving out rest part of the sentence. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and LCR be sent to the learned Court below for information and taking necessary action. 24. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant be set off accordingly. The learned Trial Court shall take appropriate step to send the appellant to jail for serving out rest part of the sentence. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and LCR be sent to the learned Court below for information and taking necessary action. 24. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.