Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 777 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Shamlabhai

2016-04-07

A.J.SHASTRI, M.R.SHAH

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As all these Appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 15/2011, two Appeals preferred by the original accused challenging their conviction and other two Appeals preferred by the State as well as the original complainant-victim for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court while convicting the original accused, they are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 1.1 Criminal Appeal No. 59/2014 has been preferred by the original accused No. 1 challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court dated 31/12/2013 in Sessions Case No. 15/2011 by which the learned trial Court has convicted original accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 323, 376, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 1.2 Criminal Appeal No. 58/2014 has been preferred by original accused Nos. 2 and 3 challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court by which the learned trial Court has convicted original accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 323, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and original accused No. 3 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 1.3 Criminal Appeal No. 297/2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 25/2014 have been preferred by the State as well as the original complainant respectively for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court imposed while convicting original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as under:- 2.1 The original complainant-victim, namely Hariyaben daughter of Chenabhai Bhutabhai and wife of one Gordhanbhai Parkhabhai Patel lodged an FIR bearing Registration No. C.R. No. 129/2010 registered with Dhanera Police Station against the original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 376, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the complaint that she is married and was residing at Kuvarla village at her in-laws place. It was stated in the complaint that she is married and was residing at Kuvarla village at her in-laws place. Original accused No. 1 was residing near the house of the father of the original complainant, original accused No. 2 was a priest in the temple of Lord Shankar at village Gola and original accused No. 3 was also residing near the farm of the father of the original complainant. It was further mentioned in her complaint that since last four years she was residing at her in-laws place at village Kuvarla and she used to go to her parental house at village Gola also. It was alleged that on 09/11/2010 at about 1:00 hours in the mid-night all the original accused persons came to her in-laws place where she was staying in a Jeep and knocked the door and on hearing the noise she woke up and went outside her house to see who had knocked and on seeing the original accused persons she asked them whey they have come and at that time original accused No. 1-Shamlabhai caught her and pressed her mouth and original accused No. 3 dragged the original complainant into the Jeep and the said Jeep was driven by original accused No. 2. It was alleged that thereafter all the original accused took her to a farm where she was raped by original accused No. 1 and original accused No. 2 gave kick blows to her. It was alleged that therefore all the original accused persons with the help of each other kidnapped the original complainant in the Jeep with an intention to commit rape. It was further alleged that at that time the original accused possessed deadly weapon. Original accused No. 1 after committing rape threatened her by saying that if she told this to anybody she would be killed. It was alleged that during that time she made an attempt to escape but the original accused beat her. It was further alleged that while they reached near village Hemaguda some villagers gathered upon hearing her shout and thereafter the original accused ran away from there. It was further alleged that due to the villagers she succeeded to escape from the original accused and thereafter the villagers informed about the said incident to the Jhab Police Station. It was further alleged that while they reached near village Hemaguda some villagers gathered upon hearing her shout and thereafter the original accused ran away from there. It was further alleged that due to the villagers she succeeded to escape from the original accused and thereafter the villagers informed about the said incident to the Jhab Police Station. It appears that in the meantime the husband of the victim-Gordhanbhai also gave one Janvajog entry about missing of the victim with Dhanera Police Station, which came to be registered as Janvajog Entry No. 17/2010 and Dhanera Police was inquiring about the original complainant, and therefore, the concerned Police Officer of Jhab Police Station informed and called Dhanera Police Station and Dhanera Police reached Jhab Police Station. It appears that thereafter the victim was taken to Dhanera Police Station and her parents and husband were called at Dhanera Police Station. Thereafter the victim went to her parental house. Thereafter, on the next day of the arrest of the original accused i.e. 12/11/2010 in the morning victim gave one complaint typed complaint to the Dhanera Police Station, which was subsequently registered as FIR, being C.R. No. I 129/2010 and thereafter, the aforesaid FIR was investigated by the concerned Police Officer of Dhanera Police Station, P.W.11 - Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai. He recorded the statement of all the concerned witnesses. He also collected the clothes of the victim. He also initially recorded the statement of the victim in presence of her aunt Ranguben. He also sent the victim to the Doctor for medical test. Thereafter the investigation was further carried by one Shri Jaydeepsinh Venisinh-P.W.12-P.S.I. Dhanera Police Station. He seized the Jeep alleged to have been used for commission of the offence. He also recovered the knife alleged to have been used in commission of the offence. At this stage, it is required to be noted that when the Dhanera Police Station got the custody of the victim from Jhab Police Station and she was brought to the Dhanera Police Station parents and husband of the victim reached Dhanera Police Station and the Police Officer, Dhanera Police Station recorded the statement of the victim as well as her husband-Gordhanbhai and the victim desired to go to her parents house, and therefore, she was allowed to go to her parents house at village Gola. However, at that stage, the original accused were also permitted to leave/go after obtaining bail under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As it was apprehended that original accused No. 1 - Shamlabhai was residing near the house of the father of the original complainant there might be some breach of peace, his statement was taken. Thereafter, after conclusion of the investigation, P.W.12-Jaydeepsinh Venisinh filed the charge-sheet against the original accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 376, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Deesa, which was transferred to the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 15/2011. The learned trial Court framed the charge against all the original accused at Exh. 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 376, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. All the original accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, all of them came to be tried by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences. To prove the case against the original accused the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- PW No. Name of the Witness Exhibit No. 1. Khegarsinh Kesji Devad 11 2. Meghjibhai Laljibhai Thakore 18 3. Hariyaben Chenabhai Patel 23 4. Chenaji Bhutaji Patel 27 5. Dr. Miteshkumar Muljibhai Dabhi 31 6. Navinbhai Chelabhai 39 7. Danabhai Malabhai 41 8. Babulal Hakmaji 42 9. Narsihbhai Khemraji 45 10. Gordhanbhai Parkhabhai 46 11. Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai 48 12. Khegarsinh Kesji Devad 11 2. Meghjibhai Laljibhai Thakore 18 3. Hariyaben Chenabhai Patel 23 4. Chenaji Bhutaji Patel 27 5. Dr. Miteshkumar Muljibhai Dabhi 31 6. Navinbhai Chelabhai 39 7. Danabhai Malabhai 41 8. Babulal Hakmaji 42 9. Narsihbhai Khemraji 45 10. Gordhanbhai Parkhabhai 46 11. Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai 48 12. Jaydeepsinh Venisinh 49 Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences:- Exhibit No. Particulars 12 Panchnama of the seizure of clothes worn by the victim at the time of the incident 13 to 15 Copy of the Muddamal notes 19 Panchnama of the seizure of the clothes worn by the accused 20 to 22 Copy of the Muddamal notes 24 Original copy of the complaint of the complainant 32 Medical certificate of the victim issued by CHC, Dhanera 33 Yadi written to Medical Officer, Dhanera with regard to physical examination to the victim 34 Yadi written to Medical Officer, Dhanera with regard to physical examination of the accused 35 Medical certificate of the accused issued by CHC, Dhanera 40 Panchnama of the place of offence 43 Panchnama of the place of offence 44 Panchnama of seizure of Muddamal vehicle 50 Yadi written to Executive Magistrate with regard to bail of the accused 51 Yadi written of Jab Police Station 52 FSL Receipt 53 Dispatch note with regard to sending of Muddamal to FSL 54 Cover letter of the FSL 55 Report of FSL 56 Serological Report of FSL 57 Suchipatra regarding the offence 59 Suchipatra with regard to Janva Jog No. 17/10 dated 10/11/10 of Dhanera Police Station After the closing purshis submitted by the prosecution further statement of the original accused were taken under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the original accused denied having committed any offence. It was stated by them that though they are innocent false complaint has been filed against them. At the conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has convicted original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 367, 323, 376, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and has imposed sentence of two years' Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo further one month Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 367 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to under go 20 days Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 750/- and in default to undergo 15 days Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to undergo nine years' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to under six months Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 750/- and in default to undergo 20 days' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 14,500/-. By the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has convicted original accused No. 2 under Sections 366, 367, 323, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Peal Code and has imposed sentence till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to under go one month Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code till rising of the Court he has to undergo the sentence with a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to undergo 20 days Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 750/- and in default to undergo 15 days Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 750/- and in default to undergo 20 days Rigorous Imprisonment. By the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has also convicted original accused No. 3 for the offences punishable under Section 366, 367 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and has imposed the sentence already undergone. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, original accused Nos. By the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has also convicted original accused No. 3 for the offences punishable under Section 366, 367 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and has imposed the sentence already undergone. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present Appeals. 3. Shri Tejas Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting the original accused. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that the learned trial Court has materially erred in relying upon the deposition of the victim, P.W.3 as well as the deposition of the husband of the victim-Gordhanbhai-P.W.10 while convicting the original accused. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that in fact the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that both the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.3 as well as P.W.10 both are not reliable and trustworthy. It is submitted that both the witnesses have not come out with true case and facts. It is submitted that the deposition of both the witnesses are contradictory and they are not corroborated by deposition of each other and/or corroborated by other independent witness. 3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that as such the victim falsely stated in her deposition that she was not knowing the original accused. It is submitted that however she has thereafter categorically admitted that she was knowing the original accused as they were from the village where she was residing with her parents. It is further submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that even the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that neither before the Jhab Police Station nor even before the Dhanera Police Station the victim stated against the original accused other than what she has stated before the Court in her deposition. It is submitted that even from the deposition of P.W.11-Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai, Police Officer of Dhanera Police Station in fact the victim herself stated that she was in love with original accused No. 1-Shamlabhai and she went with original accused No. 1. It is submitted that in the cross examination P.W.11-Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai has specifically admitted and stated what the victim stated in her statement which was recorded by him, which was recorded in the presence of her aunt-Ranguben. It is submitted that as such considering the statement made by her, which as such was made by her at Dhanera Police Station, in fact the victim as well as original accused were permitted to go as nothing was found against the original accused. It is submitted that however apprehending breach of peace, bail bond of the original accused were taken under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that subsequently on the next day and after the victim went to her parents house as desired by her on the next day and belatedly a written typed complaint was given by the victim. It is further submitted that even P.W.11-Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai has categorically stated that from the date when the custody of the victim was received from Jhab Police Station till the custody of victim was handed over to her father at Dhanera Police Station, at no point of time either the father of the victim nor any other person made any complaint with respect to the rape. It is submitted that therefore the learned trial Court has materially erred in relying upon the deposition of the victim - P.W.3. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the FIR/Complaint was given belatedly on the next day in the morning and that too a typed written complaint. It is submitted that there is no explanation whatsoever by the original complainant to give the complaint belatedly and even to give a typed written complaint. 3.3 It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has as such not properly appreciated the fact that as such deposition of the victim-P.W.3 is full of material contradictions. It is submitted that there is no explanation whatsoever by the original complainant to give the complaint belatedly and even to give a typed written complaint. 3.3 It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has as such not properly appreciated the fact that as such deposition of the victim-P.W.3 is full of material contradictions. It is submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that in the deposition before the Court the victim has stated that at the time of the incident, which was in mid-night at 1:00 hours her husband had gone to the field at 10:00 p.m. and that she was alone was in the room and the light was on and the doors were also open. However, husband of the victim-Gordhanbhai-P.W.10 has said in his deposition that he was at his house and he tried to catch the kidnappers by running behind the Jeep. It is further submitted that therefore both the material witnesses - P.W.3 and P.W.10 are not trustworthy and reliable and they have not stated the correct things before the Court, and therefore, as such it is not safe to convict the original accused relying upon the deposition of the aforesaid two witnesses. 3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that though the marriage of the victim with her husband-Gordhanbhai had taken place four years back, all throughout she continued to stay with her parents and before only two days she went to stay at her in-laws house. 3.5 It is further submitted that as such the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting original accused Nos. 2 and 3. It is submitted that as such there is no cogent and reliable evidence on the basis of which original accused Nos. 2 and 3 can be held guilty. It is submitted that therefore the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting the original accused. Making the above submissions, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and acquit the original accused from the charges/offences for which they were tried. 4. It is submitted that therefore the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting the original accused. Making the above submissions, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and acquit the original accused from the charges/offences for which they were tried. 4. The Appeals preferred by the original accused are vehemently opposed by Shri K.L. Pandya, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant. 5. Shri K.L. Pandya, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the present case the victim-P.W.3 as well as her husband-Gordhanbhai-P.W.10 have fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that therefore the learned trial Court has as such not committed any error in convicting the original accused. 6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant-victim has submitted that in the present case the victim herself has deposed before the Court and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the victim was sent for medical test and some injuries were found on the body of the victim. It is submitted that the injuries on the body of the victim has been proved by Dr. Miteshkumar Muljibhai Dabhi-P.W.5. It is submitted that therefore the original accused as such have not explained the injuries sustained by the victim. It is submitted that therefore when the victim herself has stepped into the witness box and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. So far as evidence/witness is further corroborated by deposition of her husband-Gordanbhai, and therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the original accused. It is submitted that on the contrary the learned trial Court has materially erred and has committed a grave error in exercising lesser punishment, more particularly, imposing the sentence already undergone while convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 376, 323, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that on the contrary the learned trial Court has materially erred and has committed a grave error in exercising lesser punishment, more particularly, imposing the sentence already undergone while convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 376, 323, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that while imposing the punishment/sentence the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the offence committed by the original accused for which they are convicted is against the woman and against the society at large, and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have imposed just and adequate punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence. It is submitted that therefore while imposing the punishment/sentence the learned trial Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously, and therefore, it is requested to enhance the punishment/sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and impose maximum punishment, which is provided for the offence for which the original accused have been convicted. Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the Appeals preferred by the original accused-convict and to allow the Appeals preferred by the State as well as the original complainant-victim, which have been preferred for enhancement of the sentence. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court in detail. We have gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while convicting the original accused. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 7.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has convicted original accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 323, 376, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code; original accused No. 2 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 323, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and original accused No. 3 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution and so stated by the victim-original complainant-P.W.3 in her complaint that at about 1:00 hours in the mid-night on 09/11/2010 the original accused came in the Jeep at the house of the victim where she was staying with her in-laws and they kidnapped the victim in the Jeep and took her to some other place and committed rape on her and the original accused were also having deadly weapons. However, it emerges from the deposition of the victim-P.W.3 that the original accused took the victim first to village Gandhav and thereafter to village Hemguda where she shouted and village people gathered and called the police. It also emerges that the victim and the original accused were taken to Jhab Police Station, where Jhab Police Officer called the Police Officer from Dhanera Police Station. At this stage it is required to be noted that pursuant to the Janvajog entry No. 17/2010 which was given by the husband of the victim - Gordhanbhai-P.W.10 which was given before the Dhanera Police Station, Dhanera Police was in search of the victim as well as the original accused, and therefore, the Police Officer of Jhab Police Station called the Police Officer of Dhanera Police Station. From the record it appears and emerges that no statement of either the original accused and/or even the victim was recorded by the Police Officer of Jhab Police Station. The custody of the original accused as well as the victim was handed over to the Police Officer of Dhanera Police Station. Thereafter, all of them were taken to Dhanera Police Station where the father of the victim as well as the aunt of the victim-Ranguben and the husband of the victim- Gordhanbhai were also called. It emerges from the deposition of Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai-P.W.11 that after the victim and the original accused were brought to Dhanera Police Station the victim desired to go to her parents house. He also recorded the statement of the victim in presence of her aunt-Ranguben and it appears that as there were no allegations made against the original accused even with respect to rape and/or kidnapping, original accused were permitted to go and even the victim also went to her parents house. He also recorded the statement of the victim in presence of her aunt-Ranguben and it appears that as there were no allegations made against the original accused even with respect to rape and/or kidnapping, original accused were permitted to go and even the victim also went to her parents house. However apprehending breach of peace because original accused No. 1-Shamlabhai was residing/staying near the house of the father of the original complainant his bail bond was taken under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That itself is suggestive that there was no allegation made against any of the original accused till the custody of the victim was handed over to her parents. However, subsequently and on the next day the original complainant-P.W.3 and her father gave the typed complaint in writing before the Dhanera Police Station making allegation of rape and kidnapping for the first time and the said complaint was registered as FIR. However, it is required to be noted that the original complainant has not explained the delay in lodging the complaint and that to the typed complaint. The complainant has not explained in her deposition why she gave the typed complaint with the Dhanera Police Station. 7.2 Even on considering the deposition of the victim - P.W.3 and even the deposition of her husband - Gordhanbhai-P.W.10, we are of the opinion that both the prosecution witnesses, i.e. P.W.3 & 10 are not reliable and trustworthy and it is not safe to convict the original accused relying upon the deposition of the aforesaid two material prosecution witnesses. Their deposition are full of material contradictions which creates doubt of the reliability and trustworthiness of the aforesaid two witnesses. It is required to be noted that in the deposition the victim has stated that prior to the incident she was not knowing the original accused. She had also stated in her deposition that while she was staying at village Gola neither the original accused were knowing her nor she was knowing the original accused. She has also stated that she is residing at her in-laws house since last four years. Thereafter she has admitted that she was knowing original accused Nos. 1 and 3 since last four years. She has also stated that she is residing at her in-laws house since last four years. Thereafter she has admitted that she was knowing original accused Nos. 1 and 3 since last four years. 7.3 However, it has come on record that after her marriage, most of the time she stayed at her parents house and she came to stay at her in-laws house just one/two days back. In the deposition of P.W.3-original complainant-victim has further stated that on the day of the incident at about 10:00 p.m. her husband went to the agricultural field and she and her in-laws were in the house. However, the husband of the victim - Gordhanbhai P.W.10 has deposed that he in the house and that he tried to catch the original accused by running behind the Jeep. Even the victim has also stated that when she was kidnapped by the original accused after the door was knocked and she opened the door, there was light. It is not appreciable to keep the door open in the mid-nigh with lights on. From the deposition it also appears that she did not even shout for help as even the in-laws were as such staying in the same house. It is also required to be noted that even the victim did not make any grievance either before the Jhab Police Station and/or Dhanera Police Station till the next day the complaint was given by her in writing, which was typed. Otherwise the Officer of Jhab Police station would have filed the complaint against the original accused immediately and they would have been arrested. However and on the contrary it emerges that all the original accused and even the victim were permitted to go and even the bail bond of the original accused were taken under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As observed hereinabove and from the deposition of Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai, Police Officer of Dhanera Police Station - P.W.11 when he reached Jhab Police Station having got the telephonic message with respect to the original accused and the victim being brought before Jhab Police Station, she made a statement that she had voluntarily gone with the original accused. She also stated that she had no good relations with her husband, and therefore, she was having illicit relation with original accused No. 1. She also stated that she had no good relations with her husband, and therefore, she was having illicit relation with original accused No. 1. From the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses it also emerges that the husband of the victim-Gordhanbhai gave the Janvajog which was numbered as Janvajog entry No. 17/2010 which was given on 10/11/2010. It was a complaint for missing. It also emerges from the deposition of the first Investigating Officer that the father of the victim also gave the statement that as the victim is desirous to go with him he is taking the custody of the victim and he has no complaint against anybody and he does not want to give any complaint, and therefore, considering the cumulative effect of the deposition of the material witnesses P.W.3, P.W 10 and P.W.11, we are of the opinion that P.W.3-victim as well as her husband - Gordhanbhai-P.W.10 are not trustworthy and reliable, and therefore, it is not safe to convict the original accused relying upon the deposition of the aforesaid two witnesses. As observed hereinabove, their depositions are full of contradictions and the contradictions in the statement before the Police as well as before the Court are established and proved beyond doubt which are discussed hereinabove. It is true that the conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix even without corroboration. However, it must be unimpeachable and beyond reproach. However, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ali alias Guddu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 272 when a Court, on studied scrutiny of the evidence finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix, because it is not irreproachable, then there is requirement for search of such direct or circumstantial evidence which would lend assurance to her testimony. It is further observed that in such cases where such other evidence does not support the story of the prosecutrix it can be discarded, as in the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and when it is found that the aforesaid two material witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.10 are not trustworthy and/or reliable and they have not stated the correct facts in the deposition, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the original accused. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and when it is found that the aforesaid two material witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.10 are not trustworthy and/or reliable and they have not stated the correct facts in the deposition, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the original accused. It is also required to be noted that as such there is no evidence worthy against the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 except the deposition of P.W.3 - victim, which is found to be not reliable and not trustworthy. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 367, 323, 376, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside and all the original accused are acquitted from all the charges/offences for which they were tried by the learned trial Court. It is reported that all the original accused are on bail during pendency of the Appeals, and therefore, their bail bond stand cancelled. Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 58/2014 & 59/2014 preferred by the original accused are hereby allowed. In view of allowing of the Criminal Appeal Nos. 58/2014 & 59/2014 preferred by the original accused and their conviction being quashed and set aside, Criminal Appeal No. 297/2014 preferred by the State and Criminal Appeal No. 25/2014 preferred by the original complainant-victim for enhancement are required to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, as once the conviction of all the original accused is set aside, there is no question of enhancement.