JUDGMENT : 1. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.11.2013 and 25.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia, in Sessions Case No. 70 (2) of 2012, whereby the learned trial court has found the accused guilty for having committed an offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are required to be revisited hereunder to appreciate the evidence and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties. 3. The prosecution case as unfurled herewith is such that on 02.07.2010 at about 4.30 pm. the victim went to a field closeby to her house to cut grass for their goats and at that time the accused asked the victim to help him so that he could lift the bundle of grass. On that pretext the accused had taken the victim to a jute field, disrobed her and committed sexual intercourse upon her forcibly. When the victim screamed for help, some local people, who were present near the place of occurrence, asked the accused as to what happened and then the accused confessed his guilt. Initially the de facto complainant thought that the issue can be resolved in the village level but as the accused defied to settle the matter at village level, so he set law into the motion. 4. The defence case as it appears to me from the trend of cross-examination and examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is his innocence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In such circumstances, this Court is obliged to reappreciate the evidence as adduced by the prosecution. 5. The P.W. 1 is the doctor, who had examined the accused regarding his potency. The P.W. 2 is the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Evidence of the doctor, is very pertinent on the ground that he had examined the victim medically and he did not find any injury in her vagina or private parts. As per the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as the allegation contained in the F.I.R., that the accused had committed rape upon her forcibly. As per the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as the allegation contained in the F.I.R., that the accused had committed rape upon her forcibly. It is true that the medical examination was done long after 45 days from the date of incident and naturally injury cannot be traceable due to process of healing started nearly six weeks back. However, in course of cross-examination the doctor is very candid enough and stated specifically that hymen of the victim was intact. This opinion goes to show that hymen was not ruptured. The victim was aged then about 10 years and if forcibly she was raped her hymen should have been ruptured. 6. The P.W. 4, 5 and 6 turned hostile to the prosecution. They had expressed their ignorance about the alleged offence. As per F.I.R. these witnesses were present at the P.O. at the relevant point of time. But these witnesses not at all supported the prosecution story. As per F.I.R. one Sasthi Sardar, one Buddhu Sardar, and one Tapan Sardar were also present on the spot. But they did not adduce evidence in support of the prosecution. 7. The P.W. 7 is the mother of the victim. According to her, the victim was raped by the accused and after coming back to her home, the victim ventilated her agonies to her mother. This P.W. 7, being the mother, told the incident to one Krishna Poddar, Bimal Poddar and Bijan Bag. But they were not cited as witnesses in this case. In course of cross-examination, this P.W. 7 stated that she had taken her daughter (victim) to Bisnupur Hospital on that day after that incident. But there is no medical document in that regard. Even she did not disclose the name of the doctor before whom the victim was taken immediately after the incident. Admittedly, the victim was taken before the P.W. 3, long after 45 days. 8. This P.W. 7 further stated that salish was held and the resolution of the salish was reduced to writing. But no document is produced regarding the said resolution. In course of cross-examination he has further stated that salish was held for four times and the accused appeared in one occasion and thereafter he never appeared. 8. This P.W. 7 further stated that salish was held and the resolution of the salish was reduced to writing. But no document is produced regarding the said resolution. In course of cross-examination he has further stated that salish was held for four times and the accused appeared in one occasion and thereafter he never appeared. Her such statement is quite contradictory to the averment in the F.I.R., which speaks that after the incident Dilip Tarafdar refused to settle the matter at village level. In the midst of such discrepancies and vital omissions, it would be unwise to rely on the evidence of P.W. 7. 9. The P.W. 8 is the victim. According to her, while she and her neighbour Sangita were going to the field the accused Dilip told her and to help him for lifting his bundle of grass and then she herself and Sangita came forward to help her. Thereafter, Sangita was threatened by the accused when Sangita came there with three another girls namely Chaina, Rekha and Kamona. In this context, it would be wise to consider the evidence of Sukhen who deposed under the style of P.W. 11. According to him, when he was going towards the field, he found Sangita and other girls were about to flee away refusing the invitation of the accused Dilip to come near to him. 10. As per P.W. 8, the accused threatened Sangita and others but P.W. 11’s evidence is just opposite. According to him, those girls fled away refusing invitation of the accused and not being threatened by the accused. As per P.W. 8, the accused asked her to help him so that he could lift his bundle of grass. But as per this P.W. 11, Dilip asked this P.W. 11, (Sukhen) to help him to lift his bundle of grass and Sukhen did it. So there are vital discrepancies so far as evidence of P.W. 8 and 11 are concerned. The evidence of P.W. 9 is insignificant so far as alleged offences concerned. The evidence of P.W. 10 is such that on that day they were collecting ‘Jhinge’ and then the accused came there in drunken condition. As per P.W. 8 (the victim) they were cutting the grass. The victim never stated they were collecting ‘Jhinge’ the victim also did not say that Dilip came there in drunken condition. The evidence of P.W. 10 is such that on that day they were collecting ‘Jhinge’ and then the accused came there in drunken condition. As per P.W. 8 (the victim) they were cutting the grass. The victim never stated they were collecting ‘Jhinge’ the victim also did not say that Dilip came there in drunken condition. This P.W. 10 (Sangita) had corroborated other part of the evidence i.e. that the accused threatened her with dire consequence by showing his hasua. According to her, after the mischief is done thereafter Sukhen came there. But P.W. 11, (Sukhen) did not corroborate the same. P.W. 8 in her deposition under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. stated that Sangita came there with Chaina, Rekha and Kamona. But those girls namely Chaina, Rekha and Kamona did not come to Court to adduce evidence. 11. It is true that corroboration in such cases is not mandatory nor obligatory but court of law should keep in mind a ‘rule of caution’ particularly when there are vital discrepancies and contradictions in the oral testimonies of P.W.s. In this case, I find that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are consistently inconsistent and so in such circumstances the accused should be given benefit of doubt. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 70 (2) of 2012 is hereby set aside. The accused is in custody and so he be set at liberty at once. 13. Let a copy of this Judgment and LCR be sent to the learned trial court for information and taking necessary action at the earliest.