JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2011 dated 19.3.2013, vide which learned trial court has acquitted the accused who was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 24.11.2010 one Rajiv Kumar informed Police Post, Dharampur that one Roshan Lal (accused) had entered the house of his mother-in-law at Kumharda with bad intent and had tried to sexually molest her. On the basis of said information, Rapat No. 11 was lodged and Head Constable Jagdish Chand along with other police officials reached the spot (Upper Kumharda). There he recorded the statement of prosecutrix under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. who stated that her husband had performed second marriage and her children were already married and she used to reside separately. Further as per the prosecutrix on 24.11.2010 at around 6:00 a.m. while she was sleeping in her bedroom, accused after removing the planks of roof of her house entered inside the room while she was in deep sleep. After entering her room accused forcibly caught hold of the prosecutrix and disclosed to her that he was “Roshan Lal” and she should not raise any noise. The prosecutrix somehow rescued herself from the clutches of accused and reached near the door and switched on the light and saw that accused was completely undressed. When she raised cries, accused caught hold of her from her mouth and gagged her and also laid her on the floor, in which process the shirt of the prosecutrix was also torn. Further as per the prosecutrix she somehow managed to escape herself from the accused and came outside the room and bolted the door of the said room from outside. On hearing her noise, Gulabi Devi reached the spot to whom she narrated the entire incident. Thereafter Ward Panch Ram Saran and Pradhan Gram Panchayat Sanjay Kumar were also informed who reached the spot. In the meanwhile, accused had also bolted the door from inside. Thereafter accused managed to fled away from the roof of the house from where he had entered the room. Thereafter Ward Panch Ram Saran and Pradhan Gram Panchayat Sanjay Kumar were also informed who reached the spot. In the meanwhile, accused had also bolted the door from inside. Thereafter accused managed to fled away from the roof of the house from where he had entered the room. Further as per the prosecutrix accused was seen by Gauri Prasad, Indira Devi and other persons while he was fleeing away from the spot. Accused earlier also used to do such activities with the prosecutrix. When her husband came back she narrated the entire incident to him and thereafter police was informed. 3. On the basis of said information FIR No. 342 of 2010 under Sections 452, 376 and 511 of IPC was registered at Police Station Sarkaghat. After the registration of FIR, investigation was carried out, in the course of which spot map was prepared, photographs of the spot were taken and shirt of the prosecutrix was also taken into possession. Prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined, as a result of which she could not be subjected to medical examination. The statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested but later on released on bail. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 376, 511 of IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Learned trial court on the basis of evidence placed before it both ocular and documentary by the prosecution held that the prosecution had not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by learned trial court that the story of the prosecution from its inception was confusing and doubtful. Learned trial court held that as per the case of prosecution, police was informed about the occurrence of alleged incident on 24.11.2010 at around 12:30 p.m. and pursuant to this Rapat Ext. PW8/A was lodged. Learned trial court held that said information was given by PW2, Rajiv Kumar, and in the Rapat it was mentioned that accused had already left the spot. PW8/A was lodged. Learned trial court held that said information was given by PW2, Rajiv Kumar, and in the Rapat it was mentioned that accused had already left the spot. Learned trial court further held that, however, when one peruses the evidence on record, the same demonstrates that prosecutrix as PW1 had deposed that she waited for her husband to come and when he came to her house thereafter she narrated the entire incident to him and thereafter the police was informed about the occurrence of the incident by her husband. Learned trial court further held that Krishan Lal, PW3, husband of the prosecutrix on the other hand stated that when he reached the spot he noticed the accused inside the room from the window. Learned trial court also held that incidentally neither PW1 nor PW3 had deposed that either they asked PW2 their son-in-law to inform the police about the occurrence of the alleged incident or that in fact PW2 had also reached the spot. Learned trial court also held that as per the case of prosecution, accused had entered inside the room from the rooftop after removing the planks, however, it was not clear from the evidence placed on record by the prosecution as to whether said planks were removed by the accused or same were broken. Learned trial court also took note of the fact that PW8 Investigating Officer had admitted that he had not taken into possession pieces of wood or any plank. Learned trial court also took note of the fact that Investigating Officer had also admitted that there was no approach to reach the rooftop from outside of the house of the prosecutrix. On these bases it was concluded by learned trial court that evidence regarding entry of accused from rooftop by removing planks was not satisfactory. In addition it was held by learned trial court that even the story put forth by prosecutrix about her being physically molested by accused once he allegedly entered the room by pinning her down on earth and undressing himself remained unsubstantiated, as prosecutrix in her evidence admitted that she had put quilt and blanket due to cold. Learned trial court further held that it was nowhere stated by prosecutrix that accused had firstly removed the quilt and then blanket and thereafter physically molest her. Learned trial court further held that it was nowhere stated by prosecutrix that accused had firstly removed the quilt and then blanket and thereafter physically molest her. Learned trial court held that the case of the prosecution was that when in fact accused entered the room prosecutrix was in deep sleep and on account of this she did not hear any noise of removing planks. On these basis it was concluded by learned trial court that this means that when accused entered inside the room prosecutrix was in fact sleeping with quilt and blanket cover, however it had nowhere come on record that accused had undressed prosecutrix and had attempted to sexual molest her. Besides this learned trial court also took note of the fact that as per the prosecution apart from prosecutrix other persons had also reached the spot and there was enough time and opportunity to catch accused, but no efforts were made to nab the accused. Learned trial court held that no doubt the version of the prosecutrix was that accused bolted the door from inside and thereafter fled away from the rooftop, but even then efforts could have had been made to nab the accused. Learned trial court also held that prosecutrix incidentally suffered no injuries on her person though the allegedly molestation of her by accused continued for about 10 minutes. Besides this learned trial court held that when Investigating Officer reached the spot, the room where the alleged incident took place was open and accused had already left the place and as per the versions of prosecutrix and other persons, it had not come in the deposition of anyone that efforts were made to nab the accused but despite that he fled away. On these bases it was concluded by learned trial court that neither the statement of prosecutrix nor other evidence produced on record by prosecution was sufficient to prove the case of prosecution that at around 6:00 a.m. on 24.11.2010 accused had attempted to commit rape on prosecutrix and had also committed house trespass by entering into the house of prosecutrix used as residence with an intent to commit rape upon her. Learned trial court thus acquitted the accused by holding that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused and thus accused was entitled for benefit of doubt. 6. Learned trial court thus acquitted the accused by holding that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused and thus accused was entitled for benefit of doubt. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by the learned trial Court, the State has filed this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as Mr. Vikas Rathore learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgment passed by the learned trial court. 8. It is settled law that in a case under Section 376 of IPC, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix and if the Court finds the testimony of prosecutrix to be trustworthy, truthfulness and reliable then there is no need to look for any further corroboration. In this background, before proceeding any further, we would like to refer to the statement of prosecutrix who entered the witness box as PW1. Prosecutrix deposed in the court that her husband had contacted two marriages and that she had two sons who were married. This witness further deposed that she was staying alone in her house. She further deposed that on the fateful day when she was sleeping at around 6:00 a.m., accused entered her room from the rooftop after breaking the same and removed his clothes and tried to pin her down. She further deposed that accused grabbed her from her chest and when she confronted him as to what he was doing then accused disclosed to her that he was “Roshan Lal”. This witness further deposed that she pushed the accused. It was still dark and she ran out from the room and in the said process her shirt was torn. She further deposed that she bolted the door of her room from outside and shouted for help, as a result of which her son-in-law Raju reached there. She further deposed that she called Member Ram Chander. Indira and Gouri Parshad also reached the spot. She further deposed that accused had also bolted the door and when Members who had gathered at the spot asked the accused as to why he had come there, he ran away from the spot by again using the rooftop as a passage. She further deposed that she called Member Ram Chander. Indira and Gouri Parshad also reached the spot. She further deposed that accused had also bolted the door and when Members who had gathered at the spot asked the accused as to why he had come there, he ran away from the spot by again using the rooftop as a passage. She further deposed that her husband also reached there to whom she disclosed the entire story and thereafter they informed the police who reached the spot. In her cross examination this witness deposed that she was married at the age of 11 years around 45 years ago. She further deposed that she stayed with her husband till the time he contacted second marriage. She also deposed that she was a farmer and had cattle and she used to get up early in the morning at around 5:30 a.m. She self stated that on the fateful day she had gone to attend a marriage and had reached late at night. She admitted the suggestion that there was vacant place on the rooftop which was accessible. She also stated that she did not hear any noise of planks being removed from the roof of the room. She further stated that her room was 10 to 15 feet wide and the house of Roop Lal was adjacent to her house. She further stated that she was sleeping by covering herself by a quilt and blanket as it was cold. She further deposed that accused had switched on the light and he was wearing a pant and shirt. She further deposed that she started crying for help after she had come out of the room and during the entire episode she had not suffered any injury. According to her the entire episode took place between 5 to 10 minutes. She also stated that she had raised cries for Indira when she reached out of the room which she bolted with a lock. She also deposed that after the said lock was reopened she realized that door was locked form inside. She stated that she telephonically called her husband. She further stated that she did not made any attempt to catch the accused as she was waiting for the police. She also stated that the residence of her husband was half an hour away. She stated that she telephonically called her husband. She further stated that she did not made any attempt to catch the accused as she was waiting for the police. She also stated that the residence of her husband was half an hour away. She also stated that Indira had seen the accused when accused was running from the roof. She further stated that 40 to 50 persons assembled at the spot. She further stated that she had not given her consent for her medical examination as nothing wrong was committed with her. 9. Now in our considered view, the testimony of prosecutrix neither inspires confidence nor the same appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. It is highly unbelievable that a sexual molestation attempt was made upon the prosecutrix for about 10 minutes by the accused and she suffered no injuries. In one breath she stated that it was still dark and she ran out of the room and bolted the door from outside whereas on the same breath she has stated that lights were switched on by the accused. Similarly on one hand this witness has deposed that after the accused entered her room from the rooftop he removed his clothes and thereafter tried to commit rape upon her, however, in her cross examination this witness has deposed that the accused was wearing pant and shirt. Further according to the prosecutrix though accused allegedly attempted to molest her inside the room for about 10 minutes, however, no efforts were made by the prosecutrix to raise any hue and cry as it has come in the testimony of the prosecution that she raised the alarm after she came out of the room and locked the door. In addition the factum of this witness deposing that no efforts were made to nab the accused as she was waiting for the police is also highly unbelievable. This witness further deposed in the Court that 40 to 50 people had gathered at the spot and few of them also saw the accused running from the rooftop but still why no efforts at all were made to nab the accused at the spot have not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix. This witness further deposed in the Court that 40 to 50 people had gathered at the spot and few of them also saw the accused running from the rooftop but still why no efforts at all were made to nab the accused at the spot have not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix. In our considered view, the only conclusion which can be drawn in the absence of there being element of trustworthiness in the deposition of prosecutrix is that the version which has come forth from the prosecutrix about the occurrence of alleged incident is not the true and correct version. Something else seems have had to happened which has been given colour of the concocted story on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. Our view is also strengthened from the conduct of the prosecutrix who also refused to get herself medically examined after the alleged incident took place. 10. Now in this background, we will also scrutinize the other relevant evidence placed on record by the prosecution to prove its case. PW2 Rajiv Kumar son-in-law of the prosecutrix deposed in his examination in chief that the prosecutrix was his mother-in-law and that on 23.11.2010 he had gone to attend a marriage and had stayed with his friend. He further deposed that on 24.11.2010 he received a phone call and thereafter he reached the spot. According to him lot of people had assembled at the spot and the door was locked from the outside. This witness further deposed that persons who had assembled outside the house called accused Roshan Lal. The accused stated that he had done what he had to do and then he ran away for the spot. This witness further deposed that thereafter police came to the spot. In his cross examination this witness has deposed that he reached the spot in the morning at around 7.00 a.m. He further deposed that his father in law reached at the spot at around 9:10 a.m. He also stated that no attempt was made to catch the accused. He also stated that he had not earlier acquainted with Roshan Lal. He further stated that police was informed about the incident at around 12:30 noon and police reached at the spot at around 3:30 pm. 11. He also stated that he had not earlier acquainted with Roshan Lal. He further stated that police was informed about the incident at around 12:30 noon and police reached at the spot at around 3:30 pm. 11. PW3 husband of the prosecutrix deposed that on 24.11.2010 Bhavana Devi had telephonically informed him that some thieves had entered his house where the prosecutrix was living. He further deposed that when he reached the house he found Roshan Lal roaming there naked and the prosecutrix was standing outside and that her clothes were torn and the door was locked. He further stated that he informed the Members of the Panchayat and also telephonically intimated the police. He further stated that Pradhan Sanjay Kumar and one Member Ram Saran reached the spot and 2 to 3 villagers were also came there. This witness further deposed that he asked the accused as to what he was doing there then accused told him that whatever he had do to do he had done and thereafter he ran away from the spot. He further stated that though they tried to catch hold of the accused but could not catch him. In his cross examination this witness deposed that his house was 20 to 25 minutes away from the house where prosecutrix was stayed. He further stated that he reached at the spot at around 6:20 a.m. He further stated that he was not aware as to whether PW2 had reached the spot before he reached the spot. This witness also deposed that he was intimated about the occurrence of incident by his wife after he reached the spot who told him that accused had entered from the rooftop. He also stated that the clothes of prosecutrix were torn and police reached the spot at 2:00 p.m. 12. Now when we peruse the statements of PW2 and PW3 who otherwise are closely related to the prosecutrix, we find that there are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the versions which have been given by the said two witnesses about the alleged incident. According to PW2 he reached the spot at around 7:00 a.m. whereas his father in law reached at the spot at around 9:10 a.m. PW2 stated that it was he who had telephonically intimated the police about the occurrence. According to PW2 he reached the spot at around 7:00 a.m. whereas his father in law reached at the spot at around 9:10 a.m. PW2 stated that it was he who had telephonically intimated the police about the occurrence. This witness further deposed that no attempt was made to nab the accused when he ran away from the roof. However, on the other hand PW3 has deposed that he reached the spot at around 6:20 a.m. and it was he who had telephonically informed the police about the occurrence of the alleged incident. PW3 also stated that after he reached the spot he telephonically intimated about the occurrence of incident to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and one Member and about 2 to 4 villagers reached at the spot. Incidentally in his examination in chief this witness stated that Roshan Lal was present when he reached at the spot and was roaming naked and thereafter he (accused) ran away from the rooftop. In his examination in chief this witness has also stated that they tried to nab the accused. 13. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter still remains that the contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of PW2 and PW3 have not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. 14. Not only this, there are also contradictions and discrepancies even in the testimonies of PW1 and PW3. According to PW1 after she came out of the room and locked the door of the room where people had gathered in front of her house confronted the accused but he ran away from the rooftop whereas PW3 in his testimony deposed that when he (PW3) reached the spot accused was still roaming there naked and thereafter when he confronted accused he ran away from the rooftop. Version of PW3 does not find corroboration in the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. 15. Similarly the discrepancies as to who intimated the police whether it was PW2 or PW3 also create doubts about the case of the prosecution. Though as per the prosecution lot of people had gathered outside the house of prosecutrix after the alleged incident took place but no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove and corroborate its case. Similarly the discrepancies as to who intimated the police whether it was PW2 or PW3 also create doubts about the case of the prosecution. Though as per the prosecution lot of people had gathered outside the house of prosecutrix after the alleged incident took place but no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove and corroborate its case. According to the husband of prosecutrix, the Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Members reached at the spot but why they were not examined by the prosecution could not be satisfactorily explained by the State. Mr. Gouri Prashad who has been examined by the prosecution as PW4 even does not lends any credibility to the case of the prosecution because he was not an eye witness to the incident and further it stands established that he is the real brother of the prosecutrix. Even the statement of the Investigating Officer does not lends any credibility to the case of the prosecution and furthermore when this Court is not convinced with the trustworthiness of the story put forth by the prosecutrix, it is highly unsafe even otherwise to convict a person on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy version put forth by the prosecution. 16. Besides this we have also perused the judgment passed by learned trial court, a perusal of the same demonstrates that learned trial court after taking into consideration the entire evidence which was placed on record by the prosecution had returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. In our considered view the findings of acquittal so returned by learned trial court in favour of the accused are duly borne out from the records of the case and it cannot be said that the findings are perverse. Therefore as we do not find any infirmity with the judgment which has been passed by learned trial court, accordingly while upholding the judgment passed by learned trial court, we dismiss the present appeal being devoid of merit.