JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. Cond (CR) No. 55/2017: For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 100 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Condonation application is disposed of. SLAA No. 58/2017: 1. This is an application filed by the appellant-State seeking Special Leave to challenge order of acquittal dated 19.11.2016 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda in file No. 11/Sessions titled State v. Surinder Singh and others, whereby all the three accused have been acquitted of the charges for which they were tried by the learned Trial Court. 2. Before dealing with the grounds of challenge taken by the Appellant in the memorandum of appeal and elaborated during the course of arguments, it would be appropriate to take note of factual aspects of the case. 3. As per the prosecution story, on 19th April, 2008, the prosecutrix presented an application in Police Station, Thathri for registration of an FIR against: (1) Surinder Singh; (2) Kamla Devi; (3) Ajay Kumar; (4) Hari Chand; (5) Gouran Devi; and (6) Rajni Devi. In the aforesaid application, the prosecutrix alleged that on 17th April, 2008 at about 7.00 p.m while she was going to feed grass to her cattle, she was called by accused Rajni Devi on the pretext that she had some important work with her. On the request of aforesaid Rajni Devi, the prosecutrix claims that when she went upwards and saw accused Surinder Singh standing there. In the application, it was further pleaded that after calling the prosecutrix upwards, Rajni Devi fled away and accused Surinder Singh, who was already standing there, forcibly caught hold of her, took her inside and committed rape with her for two days by keeping her in illegal confinement. It was also mentioned in the complaint that she was also threatened that in case she raises any hue and cry she would be eliminated. On the basis of aforesaid report lodged by the prosecutrix, an FIR bearing No. 24/2008 under Sections 342/376/109 RPC was registered in the Police Station concerned and the investigation was handed over to one Sh. Noor Hussain, IHC/113 Police Post Prem Nagar. He appears to have visited the spot, prepared the site plan and conducted the initial investigation. On the basis of aforesaid report lodged by the prosecutrix, an FIR bearing No. 24/2008 under Sections 342/376/109 RPC was registered in the Police Station concerned and the investigation was handed over to one Sh. Noor Hussain, IHC/113 Police Post Prem Nagar. He appears to have visited the spot, prepared the site plan and conducted the initial investigation. Thereafter, on the directions of Court issued to IGP Jammu Zone, investigation was handed over to Smt. Khurshid Begum, ASI Police Station Bhaderwah to conduct later part of the investigation, which included the recording of the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She also got the statement of prosecutrix recorded from the Court under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was medically examined once again from Doda Hospital and medical report was obtained. During the course of investigation, potency test of accused-Surinder Singh was got conducted from District Hospital Doda and attested copy of date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix was also obtained which indicated her date of birth as 01.01.1993. Accordingly, she was found to be minor. Further formalities required in the investigation including the seizure of trousers of the prosecutrix and sending them to FSL for chemical examination were also completed. Upon investigation, the police found the charges as proved against accused Surinder Singh and two others, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, a charge sheet was lodged before the Court. Accused Surinder Singh was charged under Sections 363/376/342 RPC whereas accused –respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged under Sections 363/342/109 RPC. Since none of the accused pleaded guilty, therefore, they were put to trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined nine witnesses including the prosecutrix. On completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they denied of the incriminating material that had come in the prosecution evidence. The accused, however, chose not to lead any evidence in rebuttal. The matter was considered by the learned Trial Court, who after meticulously going through the evidence recorded during trial and appreciating the substantial contradictions therein, recorded the order of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents. 5. The accused, however, chose not to lead any evidence in rebuttal. The matter was considered by the learned Trial Court, who after meticulously going through the evidence recorded during trial and appreciating the substantial contradictions therein, recorded the order of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents. 5. The order impugned has been assailed in this appeal by the State on the following grounds:- (i) That the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the law and evidence in the shape of statements of the prosecution witnesses in their right perspective and that there was enough evidence on record warranting the conviction and sentence of the respondents/accused. (ii) That the judgment impugned cannot sustain as the learned Trial Court has not considered the facts of the case in right perspective and gave a clean chit to the respondents, particularly respondent No. 1, who was already facing trial in FIR No. 40/2007 for the same offence allegedly committed against the prosecutrix, and, therefore, it was wrong promise that the benefit of this aspect has been given to the accused by holding that it was unbelievable that the accused would repeat the same offence again and that too against the same prosecutrix. (iii) Lastly, that the impugned judgment cannot sustain as the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix was a minor and, therefore, the consent, if any, inferable from the facts would have been of no consequence. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the State reiterated the aforesaid grounds and took us through the evidence recorded during trial. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record including the judgment impugned and the prosecution evidence led during trial. 8. From perusal of the judgment impugned, it would transpire that the learned Trial Court has meticulously gone through the evidence and has not found the prosecution story inspiring any confidence. In view of the major contradictions pointed out by the learned trial Court that too in the statement of prosecutrix, one recorded under Section 164-A Cr. 8. From perusal of the judgment impugned, it would transpire that the learned Trial Court has meticulously gone through the evidence and has not found the prosecution story inspiring any confidence. In view of the major contradictions pointed out by the learned trial Court that too in the statement of prosecutrix, one recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C and the other recorded in the Court during the course of trial and the other attending circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court, cannot be said to be suffered from any infirmity, as has been rightly taken note by the learned Trial Court that the prosecutrix in her application made to the Police on 19th April, 2008, had stated that she had gone to feed grass to the cattle and the accused Rajni Devi called her upwards by saying that she had some work with her. She has also stated in her written application that the accused was having knife in his hand and that he had on an earlier occasion also kidnapped her in which a separate case had been registered which was pending trial. However, the prosecutrix took a contrary stand when her statement under Section 164-A Cr.P.C was recorded by JMIC Thathri on 29th May, 2008. She stated that on 17th April, 2008 she had gone to the fields for bringing grass for cattle. She further pleaded in her application that accused Surinder Singh had committed rape upon her on the night of kidnapping and also on the next night and also on 19th April, 2008, whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C, she stated that mother of accused Surinder Singh shunted her out on the next day of occurrence, i.e., 18th April, 2008. During the course of cross-examination, the prosecutrix also stated that there was distance of 10 to 15 minutes between her village and the village of accused No. 1. She also stated that there was 15/20 houses at about 150 feet from the accused house. She also stated that prior to this incident, she stayed for one month in the house of the accused. She further stated in her cross-examination that during those 2/3 days when she remained in the house of accused, she used to go outside for urination but she did not disclose all this to anybody. She also stated that prior to this incident, she stayed for one month in the house of the accused. She further stated in her cross-examination that during those 2/3 days when she remained in the house of accused, she used to go outside for urination but she did not disclose all this to anybody. In the concluding portion of her statement in the Court, she also stated that if the accused would not have thrown her out of house, she would not have lodged the report to Police. Other evidence in the shape of statements recorded in the Court was also meticulously examined by the learned Trial Court in the light of statement made by the prosecutrix and found that the miserably failed to connect the accused with the offences charged. Learned Trial Court has also considered the medical evidence which also pointed out no recent intercourse. It was also noted by learned Trial Court that after recording the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164-A Cr. P. C by JMIC Thathri on 29th May, 2008, however, statement was recorded by the IO under Section 161 Cr. P. C on 19th October, 2008 so as to enable the prosecutrix to make improvements. 9. Learned Trial Court after taking note of evidence and the law obtaining on the subject, did not find the prosecution case proved. 10. After perusal of the record and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the State, we do not find any material to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment impugned. It is well settled that conviction of a person accused of committing offence under Section 376 RPC can be based solely on the testimony of the victim of rape even if it is un-corroborated but only if the statement of victim of rape transpires confidence and does not suffer with any material infirmity or contradictions as has been rightly held by the learned Trial Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case as has come on record during the course of trial and statements made by the prosecution witnesses, do not inspire confidence and, therefore, cannot be made the basis for conviction of the accused. 11. We, therefore, do not find any material to come to a contrary finding. 12. 11. We, therefore, do not find any material to come to a contrary finding. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment impugned does not call for any interference and that being the position, as such the leave to appeal is declined. 13. The application shall stand dismissed.