Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. State has filed this application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 18.09.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, in File No.15/Sessions in case titled ‘State Vs. Mohd. Hanief and others’ whereby court below has acquitted all the accused persons for the charges under Sections 376/342/341/323/109 RPC. Memo of appeal has also filed. 2. It is pertinent that there was an application condonation of delay of 149 days, which stands disposed of vide order dated 09.02.2017. While hearing on application to grant leave to file acquittal appeal, we have also heard on merit of the case, because for granting leave to file appeal, merit of the case is also required to be appreciated. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the accused have been prosecuted for offense u/s 376/342/241/323/109 RPC; the FIR no. 135/2008 was lodged in police station Kathua on the basis of statement of Victim/prosecutrix received by Sh. Narinder Singh SI Incharge Police Post Industrial Estate Kathua , Victim stated that the she was married with Gama about 8 years back and out of the said wed lock two sons and one daughter were born. She works in a plastic factory in Hatli Morh. Accused Mohd. Hanief used to tease her while she was on her way to the factory and back to home. He used to ask her to agree to his offer and when she did not exceed to his offer Mohd. Hanief instigated her husband as a result of which her husband turned against her. On 04.05.2008 when she had gone to collect her wages from the factory at about 4 O’ clock accused Mohd. Hanief came in her way, obstructed her and thereafter accused Mohd. Hanief, Aslam and Hasham Din started beating her with fist. She was caught hold by Hasham Din by arm and Mohd Hanief inflicted blow with lathi due to which she fell unconscious. She was taken to the house of Mohd. Hanief and she was tied with the tree and was again beaten. Accused Mohd. Hanief asked his wife to bring police from Hatli Morh. Wife of the accused and accused Hasham Din went to Police Post Hatli Morh. Accused Mohd. Aslam was asked to go with the livestock and he went towards Maggar Khad. Accused thereafter broke the string of her salwar and started committing rape upon her. Accused Mohd. Hanief asked his wife to bring police from Hatli Morh. Wife of the accused and accused Hasham Din went to Police Post Hatli Morh. Accused Mohd. Aslam was asked to go with the livestock and he went towards Maggar Khad. Accused thereafter broke the string of her salwar and started committing rape upon her. He brought a blade and asked her to bring out her tongue as he will cut her tongue, so that she would not be able to make any statement. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and in the investigation police found offences punishable under section 376/342/341/323/109 RPC against Mohd. Hanief and 342/341/323 RPC against rest of the accused. Accused were charge sheeted on 14.10.2008 by court below; they denied the accusation. 4. From the perusal of challan, it reveals that there were 11 witnesses cited and out of which eight have been examined. Court below after holding trial acquitted the accused on the grounds that statement of victim/prosecutrix is improbable and does not inspire confidence of court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for accused. The case of the prosecution is mainly resting upon the statements of Victim and one Mst. Bibi Bano. 6. The brief resumes of prosecution witnesses is as under:- PW1 Victim has stated that he accused are known to her. She was married about 8 years back with Gamma and out of the said wedlock she has two sons and one daughter. She was working in the factory at Hatli Morh. About 1 year and 2 months back on 4th Baisakh when she was returning back, accused and her husband met her. Her husband ran away and accused started abusing her at Rakh Jal Path. She was beaten by the accused with Lathi. Injury was inflicted upon her by accused with Lathi whereas accused Hashim caught hold her by her arm, her hands were tied with rope and she was dragged and taken to the house of accused Mohd. Haneef. She was tied with a tree and accused Hanief asked his wife and Hasham Din to call Police and accused Aslam was sent by him with the Live Stock and thereafter accused Hanief committed rape upon her against her consent and tore her clothes. He also came with the blade to cut her tongue and again beat her. Haneef. She was tied with a tree and accused Hanief asked his wife and Hasham Din to call Police and accused Aslam was sent by him with the Live Stock and thereafter accused Hanief committed rape upon her against her consent and tore her clothes. He also came with the blade to cut her tongue and again beat her. She was medically examined and her Salwar was seized vide EXTP-1. Her statement was recorded. She was rescued from the spot by the police who came on spot. She has admitted statement made by her u/s 164-A Cr.P.C. EXTP-1. In cross examination, she has stated that she is living in her house and not with Noor Din, who is in her distant relation. Her husband developed intimacy with the accused from the day when she was beaten by the accused. She has no knowledge whether accused Hashim Din and Aslam had purchased land from Noor Din. She also cannot say whether Sheema was married to Lal Hussain or not. She does not know whether the hut of accused Mohd. Hussain was burnt by accused Qasim Din and Lal Hussain for which they were fined Rs.5000/- in Biradari. On the day of occurrence, her husband was with the accused, who did not try to save her. The distance of the house of accused Hanief from the place of occurrence is about 1 Km and the road is uneven because of presence of stones. Her both hands were tied with rope by the accused. Accused Hashim forcefully turned her neck whereas rest of the accused beat her. She was dragged by accused Mohd. Hanief. She suffered injuries and bruises all over her body. Her daughter aged about 18 months was with her at that time. Hanief has 3 children. She does not know their age but are of young age. Accused Hanief resides with his family. House of Aslam is about 20-30 yards from the house of accused Hanief. While she was dragged, on the spot people were watching but later on she stated that people came there after the occurrence. She does not know their names. They were there at the time she was set free by the police. Wife of the Hanief did not try to save her but she brought police. Injuries were inflicted on her lips, mouth. She does not know their names. They were there at the time she was set free by the police. Wife of the Hanief did not try to save her but she brought police. Injuries were inflicted on her lips, mouth. One blow of stick was inflicted on her lips and others on her body. At the time when accused committed rape her hands, feet, legs etc. were tied which were untied after commission of rape. She tried her best to escape but failed. She did not raise any cry because she was threatened by accused Hanief that he may cut her tongue with blade. The path from where she was dragged is a thorough fare and the same path is used by the residents of village Magar Khad. Mst. Bibi on hearing cry came on spot but Hanief threatened her that she would be given the same treatment. Her statement was recorded u/s 164-A but in the said statement it is wrongly mentioned that wife of the accused Mohd. Hanief tried to save her. She has denied that she had any grudge with the accused and in order to help Noor Din she made the false statement and in order to take revenge accused has been framed in the false case. PW2 Mst. Bibi Bano stated that accused are known to her. On 04.05.2008 the Zulfan the complainant was on her way towards the Company at about 3 PM, she was way laid by the accused and was beaten. She was taken to their house. She saw accused beating Zulfan near the house of the accused. Accused told her, they will not leave her and asked her to leave the spot otherwise they will also beat her. Police came on spot later on. Accused had tied Zulfan with rope and police set Zulfan free. Accused had tied Zulfan with tree and were beating her. She was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution and during cross examination by the prosecution she stated that she was grazing cattle near the place of occurrence, accused were already standing there and as soon as Zulfan came, they started beating her. She (Witness) tried to save her but she was asked to leave otherwise she would be killed. House of accused Hanief is near her house. She (Witness) tried to save her but she was asked to leave otherwise she would be killed. House of accused Hanief is near her house. Accused Hanief asked his wife and Hashim to call police and in the meanwhile police came on spot and took accused from the place of occurrence. Her statement u/s 164-A EXTP-2 was recorded. In cross examination, she stated that she lives with her husband and 7 children in her house. She was with her cattle and her children were at home. Accused Hanief dragged Zulfan with rope upto more than 250 feet, i.e. from the Court room to Main Gate. Zulfan body was touching the stony ground when she was being dragged by the accused. She (Witness) followed the accused persons while they were dragging the complainant. There is no house in the way but it is thorough fare. Accused took half an hour to reach the house along with Zulfan (complainant). The accused was beating her during this period. Zulfan escaped from them once but was again caught by the accused persons and during this period nobody came there. Children who came there to drink water told the people of the village about the occurrence. She went to her house, which is nearby the house of accused Hanief. She was watching her from her house (dera). The accused was beating Zulfan and she was crying. She went to inform the people about the murderous attack. People came there at 4 o’clock. She sent children to call Noor Din where Zulfan was residing. She was residing there since 5-6 months. The husband of Zulfan also beat her through accused person. He was not there personally. Zulfan is her cousin sister. Noor’s house is at a distance of 10 minutes from the place of occurrence. The accused Hanief’s children reside in the same house and her children were also residing with her. At the time of occurrence her children and the children of accused Haneef were present in their homes. Hanief has 4 daughters and one son. She had stated in her statement that she sent children to call people. and also went to call people. She has made this statement in the Court at her own. She was taken to Court by Zulfan. Police was also with her and Zulfan was also standing there in the Court. Hanief has 4 daughters and one son. She had stated in her statement that she sent children to call people. and also went to call people. She has made this statement in the Court at her own. She was taken to Court by Zulfan. Police was also with her and Zulfan was also standing there in the Court. When her statement was being recorded, there was a single person on the Dias, who was on the left side of the table and rest of the Dias was vacant. The person who was sitting on the left was asking her questions and she was replying. Central chair and right chair on the Dias was vacant. When the accused person was beating she has not sustained any injury. She was not beaten by sticks but was slapped only. She has shown her torn off shirt to the police. Only the hands of Zulfan were tied with tree of Arhu. Rope was tied with the tree of Arhu. There was no tree of Arhu (apricot) in the house of accused Hanief. The back of Zulfan was with the tree and face was in front side i.e. she was facing front side. She has not seen any blade, saw and sickle in the hands of accused Hanief. He was having stick in his hand. When police came, there were 10-12 people but she does not know their names. She went to Maggar Khad to call the people as they are known to her. Villagers came thereafter, 10-12 people came there before the arrival of police. Those people belong to village but she does not want to disclose their names. Zulfan was in captivity and she cannot say about rape but her salwar was torn off. The salwar was not torn in front of her. The police recorded her statement on third day of occurrence. Rope and Sticks were also seized. She has not stated before police that on the day of occurrence she went to purchase house hold items at Tara Nagar. Police has recorded this thing (fact) wrongly. Zulfan met her on the street. She has stated before police under section 161 Cr.P.C that Zulfan was coming back from factory, this thing was told to her by Zulfan. She went to save Zulfan in the house of accused Hanief. She has denied that people saved the Zulfan from the clutches of the accused. Zulfan met her on the street. She has stated before police under section 161 Cr.P.C that Zulfan was coming back from factory, this thing was told to her by Zulfan. She went to save Zulfan in the house of accused Hanief. She has denied that people saved the Zulfan from the clutches of the accused. The police saved her. Accused Hanief and Aslam reside on the other side of Maggar Khad in village where Noor Din resides. Accused Hashim and Aslam had purchased land from Noor Din. Accused Hanief has grabbed her land. The hut of Hashim was burnt by the Lal Hussain. She does not know that for what Lal Hussain was fined. Zulfan left the village and fled away somewhere else. She was accompanying the complainant Zulfan when she slapped her husband in Court premises. She does not know accused Gamma (husband of Zulfan), who wanted to take her in his company but Noor Din is creating problem. She does not know accused person render help to Gamma for taking Zulfan in his matrimonial house from the house of Noor Din. She has further denied that she, Zulfan and Noor Din framed this false case deliberately and intentionally and Zulfan beat Hanief’s wife for which he sent his wife to call police. PW Abdul Ghani has stated that the accused persons are known to him and complainant Zulfa who is wife of Gamma is also known to him. On Tuesday 2008 he was sleeping in his house. The school children raised he and cry that the accused are beating Victim. He also reached on spot. I/O arrived on spot. Accused persons had tied her with the tree of Arhu and accused Hashim Din and Hanief were standing there. The accused Hanief threatened the police man to keep quite otherwise they will kill him. Policemen got his signature on paper. The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined. In his cross examination by PP he has stated that the accused had committed the bad thing with Zulfan after tying her with the tree of Arhu. Accused were dragging the Zulfan and Haneef said that she became his wife. This thing might have happened before he reached on spot. Bibi arrived there before me but she also came there afterward. He acknowledged his signature on seizure memo of rope EXTP-3. Accused were dragging the Zulfan and Haneef said that she became his wife. This thing might have happened before he reached on spot. Bibi arrived there before me but she also came there afterward. He acknowledged his signature on seizure memo of rope EXTP-3. He has seen the rope in the Court and is the same. Salwar was not seized in his presence. Accused reside nearby his house. He has denied that he is lying to save the accused. In his cross examination by the defence counsel, he has stated that his statement was not recorded by police. Police had taken his signature. His house is at a distance of 2 KM from the house of accused Haneef. He cannot say anything about the length of the rope as the same was not measured by him. The rope which he has been in the Court is not red and black but it is of green and white in colour. The police kept the rope with them before his arrival on spot. He has not seen Zulfan tied. He was told by police that Zulfan was tied and thereafter his signatures were taken by police. He has not seen any trifle between Zulfan and accused persons. He has denied that he does not went on spot as suggested. PW Bui Dass has stated that he was posted as Head Constable in police post Industrial Estate Kathua. On 04.05.2008 he was accompanying I/C PP who was investigating the case when he went for investigation in hospital Kathua. SI seized the black salwar of Zulfan and was seized on spot for purpose of examination in the FSL. Thereafter one bamboo (4 feet long and 4 inches thick) was seized from the place of occurrence at Rakh Jalfadh Maggar Khad (which is residential house of Mohd. Hanief), one bamboo stick the length of which is 3 feet was seized. The seizure memos were prepared which bears his signature, one rope (plastic) the length of which is 5 feet, which have two pieces is of two colours i.e. Green and black was also seized by SI. Thereafter SI also seized salwar of accused Mohd. Haneef. He signed on seizure memo of salwar in English. The seizure memo regarding salwar of accused Mohd. Haneef is seen by him and contents are correct and he has identified his signatures EXTP-6. Thereafter SI also seized salwar of accused Mohd. Haneef. He signed on seizure memo of salwar in English. The seizure memo regarding salwar of accused Mohd. Haneef is seen by him and contents are correct and he has identified his signatures EXTP-6. In cross examination by defence counsel, this witness stated that he cannot tell which lathi (stick) pertains to which accused because sticks were not seized from the accused persons. The sticks were seized at 8.30-9.00 PM from the court yard. Sticks were not shown by the complainant but these were seized at the instance of eye witness. He has not seen the salwar of accused and complainant in the Court. The complainant was admitted in the hospital when they seized the sticks. He has denied that the seizure memos were not prepared on spot. PW Mohinder Lal Sharma has stated that he was posted as Tehsildar at Kathua in 2008. On 08.05.2008 two packets marked as A and B were brought before him by constable 774/K name Sandeep Kumar. The packets were already sealed. The packets were resealed by the clerk in his presence on the request of police and after following procedure issuing certificate to FSL for opening the packets. The certificate dated 08.05.2008 placed on file is seen by him. It also bears seal and the contents are correct and it is exhibited as EXTP-8. In cross examination by defence counsel he has stated that the certificate was prepared by him. The certificate EXTP-8 does not found mentioned that it is prepared under my supervision or on my dictation. In the certificate the entry made with ink are not in his handwriting, but of his clerk. It is also not written in the certificate that the packets were in sealed condition and how many seal impressions were there on the seal packet of the police seal. PW Narinder Singh, Investigating Officer, has stated that in the year 2008, he was posted as Incharge Police Post Industrial Estate, Kathua. He has investigated the case ‘State Vs. Mohd. Haneef’ bearing FIR No.135/2008. During investigation he has recorded the statement of complainant Zulfan in hospital Kathua and on her statement docket was sent to police station Kathua for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, the investigation was entrusted to him. He has investigated the case ‘State Vs. Mohd. Haneef’ bearing FIR No.135/2008. During investigation he has recorded the statement of complainant Zulfan in hospital Kathua and on her statement docket was sent to police station Kathua for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, the investigation was entrusted to him. During investigation salwar of complainant was seized in the hospital and the seizure memo was also prepared thereafter site plan EXTP-9, FIR EXTP-10, Seizure memo of sticks EXTP 6/1 and EXTP 6/2, Seizure memo of rope EXTP-3 and seizure memo of Salwar EXTP-1 bears his signatures and are true and correct. He has also recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of complainant EXTP-1/1 in the file is also recorded by him and is correct. He has also made arrest of two accused namely Mohd Hanef and Hashim Din. After getting the accused medically examined, they were taken on remand. The statement of complainant and Bibi Bano were recorded in Munsiff Court Kathua, which is seen by him in the Court file and is correct. The seized salwar of the complainant was sent to FSL for chemical analysis after resealing through Magistrate. The accused Mohd Aslam was also taken in custody and arrest memo as well as personal search memo were prepared, which are on the file. He has also seen the challan which is prepared by SHO Kuljeet Singh. In cross examination by defence counsel, this witness stated that out of three accused persons, accused was arrested at Rakh Jalphar. The accused Haneef was arrested at 7 PM from his house. In the seizure of salwar EXTP-1 cutting is made and digit 5 is converted into 4 (date). In report No.15 as well as in FIR it is not clear from whom, when and by what mean police got the information. The time of recording the statement of complainant upon which FIR was lodged has not been mentioned. He proceeded for investigation at 10 PM. He went to spot along with other employees. He met the complainant in the hospital and not at place of occurrence. Who untied the complainant from the tree of apricot (arhu) not come in the investigation. The time of recording the statement of complainant upon which FIR was lodged has not been mentioned. He proceeded for investigation at 10 PM. He went to spot along with other employees. He met the complainant in the hospital and not at place of occurrence. Who untied the complainant from the tree of apricot (arhu) not come in the investigation. It is not shown in the site plan regarding witnesses Bibi Bano, Marid Ali, Khatiza Begum, where were they and how they come on spot and their houses were also not shown in the site plan prepared in his investigation. It is also not shown in the site plan from where the eye witnesses saw the occurrence. The way which he has shown in the site map, there is no house on that side. He has not seized any blade in his investigation. Complainant was going to her home from factory, I have not seized any record from the factory in which the complainant was working because he does not feel any need of that. How many children the accused Haneef and Bibi Bano have, he has not investigated/inquired about that. He does not know whether Bibi Bano shown her clothes to him or not. He has denied that wife of accused Haneef took the police to the place of occurrence. He has also denied that the complainant was untied by the police from the tree of apricot. At the time of occurrence whether Bibi Bano was alone or with complainant Zulfan has not come in his investigation. He has further denied that the complainant famed a false case against the accused persons due to old enmity as is asked. FIR was lodged at 23.30 on 04.05.2008 but as per statement the occurrence took place at 4 O’ clock. PW Kuljeet Singh has stated that in the year 2008 he was posted as SHO Police Station Kathua. The FIR No.135/2008 u/s 376/341/323/109 RPC was lodged as report bears his signature. The investigation was entrusted to Bui Dass and then to Sub Inspector Narinder Singh. After completion of investigation report was placed before him and he pursued the same and then presented the challan as per the investigation conducted by I/O against the accused persons u/s 376/342/341/323/109 RPC as the said offence are made out against the accused persons. The investigation was entrusted to Bui Dass and then to Sub Inspector Narinder Singh. After completion of investigation report was placed before him and he pursued the same and then presented the challan as per the investigation conducted by I/O against the accused persons u/s 376/342/341/323/109 RPC as the said offence are made out against the accused persons. At the time of compilation of challan the FSL report has not been received and the same was produced later on. Investigating Officer proved the offence as per circumstances, statements of witnesses and other reports against the accused persons. Contents of challan are correct and bears his signature. FIR content are also correct. He identified his signature on this and the same is exhibited as EXTP-10. In cross examination by defence counsel he has stated that how the complainant reached in the hospital, who brought her to the hospital, this thing I/O can tell. Does not know about it. He has not recorded statement of any witness in the case and he has not prepared any document in this case. He agreed to the investigation as per statement written by I/O. He has not called any witness to compare their version with the statements on the file. PW Dr. Gurdeep Singh has stated that he has examined Mohd. Hanief to ascertain his sexual capability and after examination, he was found to be fit to perform sexual intercourse. The said certificate EXTP-7 bears his signature and is correct. In his cross examination by defence counsel, he has stated that Mir Mohd. is father of the accused Mohd. Hanief and is shown to be resident of Rakh Chandferd Kathua. This is the witnesses for prosecution. Court below after conclusion of trial, acquitted the accused on the grounds that statements of victim and other eye witness are unbelievable and story put forth by them was improbable. 7. Mr. L. K. Moza, learned Addl. AG representing the State has questioned the impugned judgment, inter alia, on the ground that there was sufficient evidence on record, which include the evidence of eye witnesses, the medical evidence as well as the evidence to substantiate the offences committed by the respondents. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the law and evidence on record and has not appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses in totality. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the law and evidence on record and has not appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses in totality. Learned State Counsel, thus, prays for setting aside of impugned judgment after granting leave to file appeal. 8. Per contra, Mr. Shamas-ud-Din Shaaz, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the acquittal earned by the respondents is a well reasoned judgment based on appreciation of evidence on record. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the entire facts and evidence in its right perspective, has acquitted the respondents. Learned counsel prayed that the appeal preferred by the State deserves dismissal out-rightly. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to while aspects of matter and law on the subject. 10. In case of rape the conviction can be based on solitary statement of victim/prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. But in AIR 2012 (SC) 2281 in case titled “Narinder Kumar Vs. State (NCET of Delhi), it has been held:- “23. the court while trying an accused on charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which are not of a substantial character. However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defense to explain as to how and why in rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused. 24. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defense. However, great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of accused and the prosecution has brought home the guilt against he accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and take support from weakness of case of defense. There is an initial presumption of innocence of accused and the prosecution has brought home the guilt against he accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and take support from weakness of case of defense. There must be proper legal evidence and material on record to record the conviction of accused. Conviction can be based on sole testimony of Prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. However, in case the court has reason not to accept version of Prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its totality and story projected by Prosecutrix is found to be improbable the prosecution case is liable to be rejected.” 11. In present case, Court below has held that story put forth by victim is unbelievable and she has made material improvements in her statement before court; her statement has not been corroborated by any other witness. 12. We have gone through the statement of victim recorded in Court. 13. As per her statement, her husband was there, but he ran away; it is improbable because no husband would allow other to commit rape on his wife; she has stated that accused caught hold her by hair and dragged , she was tied with rope and taken to home where she was tied with tree and accused Hanief committed rape with her, where she was rescued by police; but as per statement of I/O and it is also case of prosecution that statement of victim was recorded in hospital, further I/O Narinder has stated that he does not know as to wherefrom the information was received and who and when it was given; I/O also denied the fact that prosecutrix was untied by police from tree. She has also stated she was inflicted injuries on lip, mouth with stick; she was dragged and she received bruises; but there is no medical evidence with these regard and with regard to sexual assault on victim. 14. She has also stated she was inflicted injuries on lip, mouth with stick; she was dragged and she received bruises; but there is no medical evidence with these regard and with regard to sexual assault on victim. 14. Court below also disbelieved the statement of PW Bibi Bano the alleged eye witness on the ground that her statement did not corroborate with the statement of victim and version put forth by her is also highly improbable , because she has stated that when victim was coming back on relevant day, accused way laid and beaten victim ,she was tied by accused ; near to place one cot was lying where accused raped prosecutrix , in the meanwhile police came and rescued the prosecutrix; that prosecutrix was beaten for half an hour and was dragged . Court below held her conduct was not probable, because this witness did not raise noise, when she saw occurrence. Further her presence on spot has not been mentioned by prosecutrix. 15. We have carefully scanned the evidence; there is no perversity of facts and law with this regard. 16. PW Abdul Ghani has been turned hostile; he is also witness to seizure of rope; in cross examination has stated he has not seen victim tied with rope; it was told by police that victim was tied with rope. 17. PW Bui Dass HC is witness to seizure of black salwar, bomboo stick, one plastic rope and salwar of Hanief EXTP-1 EXTP-6 ,EXTP-6/1, EXTP-6/2, EXTP-6/3, EXTP-6/4, EXTP-6/5 and EXTP-6/6. 18. PW Mohinder Lal Tehsildar is officer who resealed the seized the articles. PW Gurdeep Singh is doctor who examined accused Hanief with regard to potency. Narinder Singh is I/O who conducted the investigation. PW Kuljeet Singh is inspector /SHO who passed the challan; the copy of report no. 17of roznamacha dated 4.5.2008 of P/P industrial estate , where the reference of statement of victim has been mentioned has also not been proved, because neither original Roznamacha was produced nor subscriber of same has been produced. Narinder Singh is I/O who conducted the investigation. PW Kuljeet Singh is inspector /SHO who passed the challan; the copy of report no. 17of roznamacha dated 4.5.2008 of P/P industrial estate , where the reference of statement of victim has been mentioned has also not been proved, because neither original Roznamacha was produced nor subscriber of same has been produced. There is no medical evidence of victim, despite the fact that statement of victim was recorded in hospital on same day as per prosecution version and then FIR was lodged; I/O did not care to get examine her from doctor to seek proof of sexual intercourse with victim on same day ; there is FSL report, but not proved, even if it is taken as it, there appears no evidence of presence of spermatozoa on seized salwar. These are certain material inherent defects in prosecution case, which makes whole story of prosecution improbable. 19. As already held, no doubt, the conviction can be based on the solitary uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix, if it is found to be liable. However, in the case on hand, the statement of the prosecutrix is suffering from many basic infirmities. 20. Resultantly, we decline to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal earned by the accused as asked for through SLAA No.70/2015. 21. Since we are not inclined to grant leave to file appeal to the State, resultantly Cr. Acq. Appeal also meets the same fate.