JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. 1. All the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in the Sessions Case Nos. 5 of 1992, 182 of 1992 and 65 of 1995 dated 18.2.2015, they are decided by this common judgment and order. 2. Present Appeals are preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in the Sessions Case Nos. 5 of 1992, 182 of 1992 and 65 of 1995 dated 18.2.2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2015 and 465 of 2015 and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default, 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 (2), 34, 120(B) and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were further ordered to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, for the offence under Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused were ordered to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. They were further ordered to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were further ordered to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants were ordered to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment as well as for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, they were ordered to 4 months simple imprisonment. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment as well as for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, they were ordered to 4 months simple imprisonment. Out of the said fine amount, it was ordered to pay Rs. 60000/- to the victim. Learned Sessions has convicted the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2015 and sentenced to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, the said appellants were ordered to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution are as under: 3.1 The prosecutrix (PW-2) and PW-3 were married in 1987. They used to stay at Dadva Village, Umrala P.S., Botad Taluka, Bhavnagar District. At the time of the incident, they had a 6-7 month old daughter. 3.2 That on 6/07/1991, PW-3 had gone to Bhavnagar in the morning for some making house-hold purchases. At about 0800hrs, the prosecutrix who was alone at her house, went behind her house to dispose off the house-hold waste. At that time she was abducted and taken to a vaadi at a distance of 3k.m. from her house where she was hit and injured, then disrobed and raped. Thereafter, she was threatened with dire consequences and was again dropped at her residence. She cried the whole day and remained in her house. She told about the incident to her husband PW-3 when he returned back in the evening. At that time, the accused persons along with others came into the house and threatened with dire consequences in case the matter is reported. 3.3 It is also the case of the prosecution that between 6/07/1991 to 10/07/1991, the prosecutrix and PW-3 were forcibly confined by the accused persons to their house so that none would be able to go and lodge a complaint. On 10/07/1991, on seeing an opportunity, the prosecutrix and PW-3 reached Umrala Police Station where they met Arjunsinh Rathod, P.S.I. (PW-1) who extremely casual and refused to take their complaint and lodge the FIR. On 10/07/1991, on seeing an opportunity, the prosecutrix and PW-3 reached Umrala Police Station where they met Arjunsinh Rathod, P.S.I. (PW-1) who extremely casual and refused to take their complaint and lodge the FIR. On the same day, they decided to reached Bhavnagar but could not meet the S.P. She also visited her father who was hospitalised in Bhavnagar. She slept at the S.T. bus-depot, overnight Bhavnagar. 3.4 It is also the case of the prosecution that On 11/07/1991, after they met the S.P., Bhavnagar, they returned on the same day and again met P.S.I., Umrala P.S. However, at that time Arjunsinh Rathod, P.S.I., Umrala Police Station got enraged, used foul-words and said that why did they complain to the D.S.P., Bhavnagar. He put both of them in the police lock-up for 2-2 1/2 hours. He said that the complaint is not supposed to be written but orally given and both of you will be in trouble if you take the name of A-1. At that time A-1, A-2, A-3 were present in the police-station and were pressurising for not including their name. Eventually, the FIR being, 1st C.R. No. 96/1991, Umrala Police Station came to be registered in respect of commission of offences under Sections 366, 376(2) (g), 120B, 447, 452, 324, 323, 343, 149, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On the same day, the medical examination of the Prosecutrix was carried out at 2130hrs dated 11/07/1991 (Exh.-54) on a police-yadi and the medical-examination papers dated 11/07/1991 (Exh.-59) and M.L.C. dated 11/07/1991 (Exh. -55) was issued in this regard by the treatment-doctor. At that time also, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were present. On 12/07/1991, the scene of offence was pointed out by the prosecutrix to the police. On 26/07/1991, arrest cum recovery of weapon (chari, laakdi) panchnama (Exh.-185) from accused Nos. 2 and 3 was drawn. On 5/08/1991, panchanama (Exh.-183) of seizure of a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. -GJ-4-3824, chasis No. -1911F-245298 from accused No. 2 was drawn. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 13/09/1991, pursuant to the investigation, charge-sheet against accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to be filed which came to be registered as S.C. No. 5 of 1992 upon committal proceedings. No. -GJ-4-3824, chasis No. -1911F-245298 from accused No. 2 was drawn. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 13/09/1991, pursuant to the investigation, charge-sheet against accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to be filed which came to be registered as S.C. No. 5 of 1992 upon committal proceedings. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14/02/1992, certain directions were issued by this Hon'ble Court during the proceedings of S.Cr.A. No. -199 of 1992, which included filing a separate complaint before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of the grievances along with directions to complete the inquiry u/S. 202 Cr.P.C. within 1 week. 3.5 On 17/02/1992, accused No. 1 was arrested at 1505hrs. 3.6 As per the case of the prosecution, on 28/02/1992, a private complaint, being, Cri. Misc. A. No. 234/1992 (Exh. -283) was filed in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court passed in S.Cr.A. No. 199/1992. After recording of the statement of the Prosecutrix and other witnesses, processes came to be issued against a total of 17 persons. Pursuant to the committal of this case, it was registered as Sessions Case No. -65/1995. On 15/05/1992, in the meanwhile, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against A-1 & A-5 and it this came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 182/1992. On 22/05/1996 and 23/12/1996 vide Exhs. -24 & 44, the Ld. Trial Court framed charges permitted framing of charges for different/various under Ss. 366/376(2)(g)/120B/447/452/324/323/343/149/34 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the BPA against different accused persons in all the 3 S.C. Nos. 5/1992, 182/1992 & 65/1995. 3.7 During the course of the trial, the following oral and documentary evidence were examined. (A) ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. No Prosecution witness Particulars Appreciation of evidence. Sr. No Prosecution witness Particulars Appreciation of evidence. 1 Dr dilipbhai Vora. PW-1/Exh.-53 Treatment doctor 2 Name not disclosed PW-2/Exh.-60 Complainant victim 3 Dineshgiri Goswami PW-3/Exh.-147 Husband of the complainant-victim 4 Kantaben Vanmalidas Maru PW-4/Exh.-173 Social activist 5 Ravirajsinh Ranjitsinh PW-5/EXH.-180 Hostile PANCH-WINTESS 6 Kantibhai nanubhai PW-6/EXH.-182 Hostile PANCH-WINTESS 7 Parshottambhai Popatbhai PW-7/EXH.-184 Hostile PANCHWINTESS 8 Bhikhabhai Ramjibhai PW-8/EXH.-193 Hostile PANCHWINTESS of the scene of offence panchanama 9 Prasanna Vadan Manilal Mehta. PW-9/Exh.-198 Social activist 10 Rupchand Bhoranmal Gurbani. PW-10/EXH.-210 WITNESSES WERE EXAMINED ON AN APPLICATION U/S. 311 OF THE CR.P.C. (EXH.-286) 11 Arjunsinh Sabalsinh Rathod. PW-9/Exh.-198 Social activist 10 Rupchand Bhoranmal Gurbani. PW-10/EXH.-210 WITNESSES WERE EXAMINED ON AN APPLICATION U/S. 311 OF THE CR.P.C. (EXH.-286) 11 Arjunsinh Sabalsinh Rathod. CW-1/EXH.-318 The P.S.I. of the Umrala P.S. 12 Chandubha Prabhatsinh Gohil, H.C. CW-2/EXH.-336 P.S.I.-Writer, Umrala P.S. 13 Krishnasinh Vibhaji Jadeja CW-3/EXH.-347 P.S.I.-Writer, Umrala P.S. (B) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Sr. No. Exhibits Particulars 1 Exh.-54 Treatment-papers of examination on PW-2 by PW-1 2 Exh.-55 M.L.C. papers of PW-2 3 EXH.-59 M.L.C. Case papers 4 Exh.-148 Complaint dated 11/07/1991 5 The various complaints made to the senior police-officers by the complainant-victim and PW-3 are not specifically referred. 6 183 Panchanama of seizure of motocycle bearing Reg. No. GJ-4-3824. 7 185 Arrest cum seizure panchanama of A-2 & A-3. 8 199 The statement on oath of PW-9 before the C.J.M. in the course of S.202 Cr.P.C. inquiry. 9 Exh.-282 The affidavit made by complainant-victims before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. 10 Exh.-157 Application made by the prosecution to add Rathod, P.S.I. and Mr Deol, C.P.I. as accused. However, Mr Deol has expired during trial. 11 Exh.-229 The order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court wherein it was observed that the question whether to add Rathod, P.S.I. and Mr. Deol, C.P.I. as accused u/S.319 Cr.P.C. to be decided by looking into the evidence recorded during trial. 12 Exh.-276 Written arguments on behalf of the complainant-victim. 13 Exh.-330 Report of the Mr. K.C. Nena, Sr. S.O., FSL. 14 Exh.-400 Additional written arguments of Adv J.N. Upadhyay. 3.8 Before the completion of the trial and pronouncement of the final judgment, the accused persons, namely, accused Nos. 5, 7 and 8 had expired and hence, the proceedings came to be abated against them. After filing of the closing purshis, the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. 3.9 After considering the submissions of both the sides and appreciating the evidence, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to pass a common order and convict accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g)/366/447/452/324/323/343 r.w. 149/34 r.w. 120B of the IPC and under Section 135 of the B.P. Act and sentenced them Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years concurrently along with a total fine of Rs. 1,03,500/-. The Ld. Trial Court was pleased to pass a common order and convict accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g)/366/447/452/324/323/343 r.w. 149/34 r.w. 120B of the IPC and under Section 135 of the B.P. Act and sentenced them Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years concurrently along with a total fine of Rs. 1,03,500/-. The Ld. Trial Court was also pleased to convict accused No. 4 and accused No. 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 447/343 of the IPC and sentenced them to 2 years concurrently and a total fine of 3,000/-. 4. Learned advocate Mr. I.H. Saiyed appearing in all appeals submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge is required to be quashed and set aside as the same is passed without appreciating the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the evidence of medical expert as well as injuries are shown in the medical evidence are under: "(A) It is significant that PW-3, the husband of the Prosecutrix has categorically said that the treatment-doctor had not given any treatment-report which was in variance with the information and input given by the Prosecutrix or that the examination report was given without carrying out complete and comprehensive examination." 5. It is submitted by the learned advocate that the injuries which are mentioned in the M.L.C. papers are as follows: "(a) Ecchymosis (internal bleeding due to bruising) over top-part & out-side on the middle of right-thigh. (b) Ecchymosis (internal bleeding due to bruising) over top-part & out-side on the middle of left-thigh. (c) Ecchymosis (internal bleeding due to bruising) on the radius of left-arm. (d) Ecchymosis (internal bleeding due to bruising) on the right-palm" 6. Learned advocate further submitted that the M.L.C. papers and the Treatment-papers specifically show that the prosecutrix had informed the treatment-doctor (PW-1/EXH.-53) that she used to have daily baths (Exh.-55/Pg.-1161 & Exh.-59). Further, it is an admitted position that the injuries caused to Prosecutrix was shown to the treatment doctor on 11/07/1991 and she has not made any grievance at any stage that Exh. -55 & Exh. -59 were not correctly recorded. Further, it is an admitted position that the injuries caused to Prosecutrix was shown to the treatment doctor on 11/07/1991 and she has not made any grievance at any stage that Exh. -55 & Exh. -59 were not correctly recorded. He also submitted that in contrast to the aforesaid injuries noted in the M.L.C. papers, the Prosecutrix has brought about a new story spoken about extensive cut injuries and other injuries caused by severe beating which were shown to the treatment-doctor. (PW-2) In further cross-examination she has stated that she was severely beaten up and inflicted 25-30 injuries. (PW-2) She has stated in her cross examination that she has been inflicted about 15-20 stick-injuries. (PW-2) It is further relevant to note that PW-3 has also parroted the line of the prosecutrix that at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix, the face had blood-marks with cut-marks on her hands and stomach but denies about any animosity with the doctor or that they might have filed any complaint about negligent/shoddy medical-examination against PW-1. (PW-3) The nature of injuries claimed by the prosecutrix are as hereinbelow: "(a) 1 bleeding injury on hand which was 5-6 inches long, (b) 1 bleeding injury over stomach which was smaller than the injury on the hand and (c) 3-4 injuries over calf area and all these injuries had recovered in 15 days time and" 7. Learned advocate further submitted that PW-3 has specifically stated that when the medical-examination of the Prosecutrix was carried out, then the signs of injury on the hand and stomach were present. (PW-3) Yet, the M.L.C. (Exh. -55) does not suggest any injury on stomach or hand-region or the calf-region of the complainant-victim more particularly when the claim of the prosecutrix is that these injuries had recovered only after 15 days time by which time she was examined by PW-1. It is unbelievable and improbable that many significant bleeding-injuries, e.g., the blade related injury on the stomach which is 5-6 inches long and the smaller injuries on the hand would have gone un-noticed in the medical examination. It is significant that there is no mention of any face/nose-bleed related injury in the history given by the Prosecutrix in the M.L.C. which belies the claims of the Prosecutrix. It is also submitted that the Prosecutrix has specifically stated that the place of offence is sandy and has thorny bushes. It is significant that there is no mention of any face/nose-bleed related injury in the history given by the Prosecutrix in the M.L.C. which belies the claims of the Prosecutrix. It is also submitted that the Prosecutrix has specifically stated that the place of offence is sandy and has thorny bushes. (PW.2) and she has specifically admitted during the entire incident, nothing was spread on the ground at the time of the incident (PW.2) and despite the same, there were no injury marks on the back-side. 8. Learned advocate submitted that the M.L.C. papers (Exh. -55) and the Treatment-papers (Exh.-59) specifically state that the treatment-doctor (PW-1/EXH.-53) had tried to collect the clothes worn during the incident but the same could not be done as the prosecutrix was changing them daily. In fact the prosecutrix had specifically told before the treatment-doctor that she was having bath daily. However, the Prosecutrix has said in her cross-examination that she and her husband did not bathe for 4-5 days continuously as well as did not wash any clothes and she had a bath for the 1st time before she had gone to meet her father. (PW-2) The conduct of not-producing the clothes worn on the day of the incident or what happened with it, which is in the exclusive knowledge of the victim would further falsify the case of the victim. She has admitted that despite realising the significance of the evidentiary value of the clothes, she has not produced the clothes before any police officer. (PW-2) She admits that she was carrying those clothes with her in bag from the hospital, to D.S.P. office, bus-stand and then next day to the D.S.P. office. (PW-2) Not surprisingly, the Prosecutrix has disowned her version before the C.J.M. wherein she had said that the police did not take the clothes despite having been given by her. PW-2 on deeper cross-examination on this aspect, she starts to find excuses and stories as to why she has not produced the clothes and after initially saying that the clothes have been used up at home, she immediately changed her story and said that they have become untraceable. The Prosecutrix admits in her cross-examination that she had washed her-clothes (blouse, chaniya, nicker) at the hospital in Bhavnagar where her father was admitted. 9. The Prosecutrix admits in her cross-examination that she had washed her-clothes (blouse, chaniya, nicker) at the hospital in Bhavnagar where her father was admitted. 9. Learned advocate also submitted that it is significant that PW-3, the husband of the Prosecutrix has not said a word about whether he had seen the clothes worn by PW-2 on the day of the incident or whether the same were shown too him or whether he had seen any blood marks on the same. Additionally, PW-3 has not stated a word about whether the Prosecutrix had informed him about the fact that she was taking those clothes alongwith her to Bhavnagar. Further, at no stage during his evidence, PW-3 has given any reason or knowledge of the reason as to where and why these clothes were washed by the Prosecutrix. (PW-3) 10. It is submitted by the learned advocate that the prosecutrix is inherently un-worthy of trust and credit. Her entire evidence along with that of her husband not creditworthy and is not truthful. Their evidence betrays suspicion right in the manner in which they decided to lodge complaint and the manner in which the medical-examination was conducted. 11. Learned advocate has drawn attention to the aspect of delay of 4 days in approaching the police has not been explained by way of cogent reasons and unimpeachable evidence and this creates a very doubt about the case of the prosecution. The prosecutrix has given the following contradictory/different versions about the manner in which she and her husband were able to escape the watch of the accused persons. "(i) The prosecutrix has stated in the examination-in-chief that she was confined to her house by the accused persons and when their vigil became slack, then she and her husband were able to go to the police station (PW-2) which fact is contradicted in the cross-examination where she has admitted that they had not left the house because the accused had become slack but because of the fact that she had given an excuse of finding out about the health of her father to accused Nos. 1 and 2. (PW-2) However, her husband denies that they had left because the accused persons had become slack and they had to give any false-excuse. 1 and 2. (PW-2) However, her husband denies that they had left because the accused persons had become slack and they had to give any false-excuse. (PW-3) Further, PW-2 denies that she had never said that because of the roaming of 7-8 accused persons around the house that she has not been able to go and file a complaint (PW-2) but PW-10 who has recorded here statement says that she had never said this fact that the accused persons remained in back-yard in the police-statement before him. (PW-10) (ii) The Prosecutrix in her cross-examination on 19/03/1998, 2 years after her examination began on 23/12/1996, comes up with an explanation that as she and her husband were met by accused No. 2 on their way to the Dadva bus-stand and told him that that they were going to Nari village. (PW-2) (iii) Also, evidence before the court, she has specifically stated that she had not given any reason to anyone prior to leaving for Bhavnagar and yet she says that she had to give excuse to the accused persons that she had gone to Bhavnagar to find out about the health of her father. (PW-2) However, Prosecutrix's claim of escaping the watch of the accused after making an excuse of some sort is contradicting by her husband who has denied that any excuse had to made before leaving for Umrala P.S. from Dadva village for making any complaint. According to PW-3, as they did not see the accused persons on 10/07/1991, therefore they left for lodging a complaint. (PW-3) (iv) The prosecution has come up with a highly improbable story of the accused persons wrongfully confining the Prosecutrix and her husband. It is respectfully stated and submitted that this story same is not at all credible. In fact inconsistent version has come on record from the mouth of the Prosecutrix and her husband. Prosecutrix has categorically stated that all the 8 accused persons were roaming around the house (PW-2) because of which she had felt threatened. It is respectfully stated and submitted that this story same is not at all credible. In fact inconsistent version has come on record from the mouth of the Prosecutrix and her husband. Prosecutrix has categorically stated that all the 8 accused persons were roaming around the house (PW-2) because of which she had felt threatened. Now, it has come specifically in the evidence of the prosecutrix that in order to go to the bus-stand she would have to pass near accused No. 2's house and similarly, accused No1's house is at a visible distance from the Prosecutrix (PW-2) and as there is a school and a bog cross-roads/chowk nearby, on route to the bus-stand, hence this allegation that such a large number of persons were keeping a watch is simply not believable. In order to overcome the issue of local topography brought out in the cross-examination, the Prosecutrix's husband has stated that all the 8 accused-persons were roaming in the backside of the house. (PW-3) However, this fact is rendered improbable as PW-3 has admitted in the cross-examination that both PW-3 & the Prosecutrix used to go to the back-side yard for answering the nature's calls. (PW-3) This fact goes on to show the extent to which both these witnesses have gone to bolster their case and in the process have exposed their lies. (v) In fact PW-3 has admitted that he is able to see the pilgrims visiting Randalmaa Temple right from 0400 hrs in the morning of every day. (PW-3) Yet, none of them had raised any alarm and no explanation is given in this regard by both the Prosecutrix and PW-3. (vi) In fact when the specific conduct of the accused persons in threatening her and her husband on the day of the incident as well as keeping a vigil as stated in Exh. -148 was put to her, then she denied having made such an allegation on 11/07/1991 or thereafter. (PW-2) (vii) Both the prosecutrix and PW-3 have admitted that the house of her kaka & kaki (Manjulaben) was nearby at distance where if she shouted, then kaki could hear. -148 was put to her, then she denied having made such an allegation on 11/07/1991 or thereafter. (PW-2) (vii) Both the prosecutrix and PW-3 have admitted that the house of her kaka & kaki (Manjulaben) was nearby at distance where if she shouted, then kaki could hear. (PW-2) (viii) Despite the fact that about 12 houses were fixed where she used to go and get ram-roti, (PW-2) and given her admission that her house does not have any water facility and that she has go out of her house for collection of water which is at a walking distance of 5 minutes (PW-2) yet her admission that for the 5 days that she was at home, she had not gone out and no one had inquired from her. (PW-2) is a clear improbability. (ix) In fact her husband says that she had gone and booked articles worth 7000/- to 8000/-from Bhavnagar on 6/07/1991 which was brought at 0900hrs by the regular transporter on 8/07/1991, so much so that he knows them by face and even though they stayed around 5 minutes for unloading. (PW-3), yet he did not try to pass any message or ask them to stay for longer time." 12. It is submitted that the different versions given by the prosecutrix and PW-3 about the manner in which they got to know the hospitalisation of the prosecutrix's father. It is amply clear from the evidence of the prosecutrix that prior to their departure for Bhavnagar on 10/07/1991, she had no idea about her father's hospitalisation as she has specifically stated in her cross-examination on 19/03/1998 (her examination began on 23/12/1996) that upon reaching the Bhavnagar bus-stand, they accidentally met her father's colleague who informed about his hospitalisation. (PW-2) Hence, the prosecutrix has lied on oath when she says that she was going to Bhavnagar at 0200hrs that too by S.T. Bus to find out about the health of her father. (PW-2) Additionally, the prosecutrix has lied on oath when she has admitted that they had not left the house because the accused had become slack but because of the fact that she had given an excuse of finding out about the health of her father to accused Nos. (PW-2) Additionally, the prosecutrix has lied on oath when she has admitted that they had not left the house because the accused had become slack but because of the fact that she had given an excuse of finding out about the health of her father to accused Nos. 1 and 2 (PW-2) In contrast the Prosecutrix's husband has clearly said that as the accused persons were not seen around on the 10th and therefore they were able to go for lodging a complaint. (PW-3). None of the immediate family members of the Prosecutrix were at Bhavnagar Hospital as she herself has admitted that when she reached the Bhavnagar Hospital, then her father was on oxygen-supply and her mother, brother or sister were not beside him and in fact her father was brought by his colleagues straight from his service. (PW-2) Apart from the ambiguity about the manner in which she came know about her father's hospitalization, the prosecutrix has not taken any steps, so much so, to even telephonic ally inform her mother, brother or sister about the serious condition of her father or to find out if they have been informed. This conduct of the prosecutrix is un-natural and is highly suspect and cannot be believed. Not only that this version of the Prosecutrix is unnatural and unbelievable, the conduct of the Prosecutrix in making no efforts to contact her mother from Bhavnagar (which is less than 12 k.m. away from Nari Village) (PW-2) and in not trying to find out about her daughter's health is not believable, particularly when her father's health was hospitalized and it could not have been possible for her mother to take care of her 6-7 month old baby since 7 days prior to the incident. 13. It is submitted that though the Prosecutrix admits that she reads an application and then signs, however in the cross-examination, she states that as these applications were prepared by her relative and therefore she signed them without reading when certain crucial omissions were put to her. (PW-2) 14. It is submitted by the learned advocate that a combined reading of her evidence itself will suggest that she has tried to be economical with the truth and has failed to stick to one single version of events. (PW-2) 14. It is submitted by the learned advocate that a combined reading of her evidence itself will suggest that she has tried to be economical with the truth and has failed to stick to one single version of events. Furthermore, as it has been specifically submitted in the context of scientific evidence, her husband is also going on with the false claims of the prosecutrix which only shows that both of them are lying. It is submitted that the evidence of PW-3, husband of the Prosecutrix instead of corroborating the version of the Prosecutrix has gone on to introduce certain facts which are not even present in the evidence of PW-2. For example, even as the Prosecutrix not spoken about the fact that whether she was wearing any bangle on the day of the incident or whether any such bangles were broken during the incident either in the complaint or in her evidence, yet PW-3 has specifically stated that certain pieces of broken bangles were pointed out at the time of pointing-out cum seizure panchanama from the scene of offence. (PW-3) 15. Learned advocate submitted that the prosecutrix is in the habit of making loose complaints against one and all. The Prosecutrix in the examination-in-chief itself, she has categorically stated that the D.S.P. was most co-operative and he had assured of putting a word through to the P.S.I. (PW.-2) Yet, in the cross-examination, she claims that she had no confidence in the D.S.P., Bhavnagar despite meeting him for the 1st time on 11/07/1991 and hence did not disclose about the fact that she was carrying the clothes that she had worn at the time of the incident. However, she has not complained about her lack of confidence in D.S.P. to anyone. (PW-2). He also submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has given a categorical finding that there is no evidence against CW-1 for the allegation that he falsely recorded the complaint or that he had caused disappearance of any evidence and therefore the allegation that CW-1 was working under the influence of anyone, much less accused No. 1 ought to be rejected as being baseless. During the cross-examination PW-3 has denied having made statements on 11/07/1991 before CW-1 (PW-3) and despite the fact that this statement was very much within the knowledge of PW-3 as the 1st charge-sheet was already filed against accused Nos. During the cross-examination PW-3 has denied having made statements on 11/07/1991 before CW-1 (PW-3) and despite the fact that this statement was very much within the knowledge of PW-3 as the 1st charge-sheet was already filed against accused Nos. 2 and 3 despite the fact that PW-3 had engaged a private lawyer, yet PW-3 does speak before the C.J.M. about not having made any police-statement dated 11/07/1991 before CW-1. (PW-3) He also submitted that in fact the Prosecutrix is habituated to making baseless complaints against one and all. She has not even spared the treatment doctor and has alleged that the treatment-doctor has carried out her examination in presence of the accused-persons. It is significant that PW-3, the husband of the Prosecutrix has categorically said that the treatment-doctor had not given any treatment-report which was in variance with the information and input given by the Prosecutrix or that the examination report was given without carrying out complete and comprehensive examination. (PW-3) The prosecutrix has belatedly and deliberately tried to cast aspersions as to the manner in which complaint (Exh. -148) was lodged. Prosecutrix has admitted that even after the lodging of the complaint (Exh. -148), she had gone back to D.S.P. Office, Bhavnagar at about 2-3 p.m. on the same day but she gave no complaint about the manner in which the complaint was lodged by CW-1 at Umrala P.S. She further admits that though she had stayed back at Bhavnagar itself, yet she made no efforts to inform the D.S.P. on the next day or 4-5 days thereafter when she admits to have met the D.S.P. (PW-2) It is stated by the complainant-victim in her complaint dated 31/07/1991 (Exh. -329) that "the investigation was going on well and therefore she was attacked", which is an admission that till 31/07/1991, the Prosecutrix had no grievance about complaint dated 11/07/1991 (Exh. -148). It is also relevant that when the Prosecutrix met PW-4 in 1992, she did not make any grievance about the FIR has not been registered properly. (PW-4) In fact PW-3 has categorically stated that 1st application made by them after lodging the complaint was made to the superior police-officers on 5/10/1991 and therefore till that point of time, no grievance was made about the manner in which the complaint was taken on 11/07/1991. (PW-4) In fact PW-3 has categorically stated that 1st application made by them after lodging the complaint was made to the superior police-officers on 5/10/1991 and therefore till that point of time, no grievance was made about the manner in which the complaint was taken on 11/07/1991. PW-3 has admitted that before 18/01/1992, there was no written-complaint was made to any superior officer about the manner in which the complaint was taken down by CW-1 on 11/07/1991. (PW-3) Further, the Prosecutrix in a letter dated 29/01/1992 to Mr. Mahapatra, D.I.G., Junagadh has not made any grievance that the complaint was not registered properly or that some accused persons who had committed rape on her have not been arrested. In fact the Prosecutrix has attached the initial complaint along with this letter to the D.I.G. (Exh. 82) He also submitted that the prosecutrix has come up with a specific case that when she went to Umrala P.S. for the 1st time, Mr. Rathod (CW-1) refused to record the complaint and therefore it was only after the intervention of the D.S.P. that the complaint (Exh. -148) came to be recorded. Prior to the lodging of the complaint on 11/07/1991 (Exh. -148), CW-1 had also received a wire-less message but the same is not produced or brought on record. It is significant as it contains the message passed by the D.S.P., Bhavnagar and has the earliest narration of the Prosecutrix. (CW-1) 16. It is submitted that in the cross-examination, she has admitted that for the 1st time she had complained about Exh. -148 not written as per her say before any police officer was to Mr. Mahapatra, D.I.G., Junagadh in January, 1992. (PW-2) In the letter dated 29/01/1992 to Mr. Mahapatra, D.I.G., Junagadh (Exh. 82), she does not make any grievance that the complaint was not registered properly or that some accused persons who had committed rape on her have not been arrested. In fact the prosecutrix has attached the initial complaint along with this letter to the D.I.G. However, her husband says that representations were made in this regard after about 1 1/2 months of the complaint. On 12/07/1991, the prosecutrix and her husband have returned back to the police-station without there being any whisper as to what was the compelling reason for doing so. On 12/07/1991, the prosecutrix and her husband have returned back to the police-station without there being any whisper as to what was the compelling reason for doing so. Further, she has also stated that she had gone back to Bhavnagar in the early morning of 12/07/1991 and yet instead of going back and complaining to the Dy. S.P., the prosecutrix had come back as directed by Arjunsinh, P.S.I. and had joined in the investigation and pointed out the place of the incident. Even assuming that Arjunsinh, P.S.I. has not taken the complaint as per her say and that too in the over-bearing presence of the accused persons and had also tortured them and did not take the complaint as per their say. This conduct of the Prosecutrix is sufficient to refute the allegations against Arjunsinh that he was hand-in-glove with the accused right since the beginning. She also admits in her cross-examination that after lodging the complaint she had stayed at Dadva Village for 7-8 days and during this period she had not complained to either her relative or any village elder that her complaint was not recorded as per her say and the reason given that she was scared of the accused person is simply not believable as till then her father-in-law had returned back. (PW-2) 17. Learned advocate further submitted that the allegation that the complaint (Exh. -148) is maliciously recorded is baseless for the following reasons:- "(i) It is unbelievable that if at the time of lodging, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were present in the police-station and were alleged to be so head-strong persons, then, Rathod P.S.I. who is alleged to be under the influence, ought not to have recorded any allegations against any of the accused persons, much less, accused Nos. 2 and 3 by name. (ii) That, 7-8 persons were roaming in the back-yard and were keeping a watch would not have been included in the Complaint." 18. Learned advocate submitted that the Prosecutrix has made much hue and cry about the fact that the complaint was not properly recorded by CW-1, Mr. Rathod P.S.I., and yet rather than complaining about CW-1 and PW-1 to the D.S.P., Bhavnagar, she has continued to join the investigation. Learned advocate submitted that the Prosecutrix has made much hue and cry about the fact that the complaint was not properly recorded by CW-1, Mr. Rathod P.S.I., and yet rather than complaining about CW-1 and PW-1 to the D.S.P., Bhavnagar, she has continued to join the investigation. In fact it is an admitted fact that it was only after passage of days and months that the Prosecutrix has raised any question about the manner in which the complaint was taken down. However, later part of the cross-examination, she has said that she went to Bhavnagar as the complaint was not recorded properly. (PW-1) It is a matter of fact, at the time of taking of the FIR, Arjunsinh was not even there. The entries # 19 & 20 of the station-diary of Umrala P.S., suggest that Arjunsinh was not present at the police-station at the relevant time. In this context, Chandubha Prabhatsinh Gohil has admitted that he had gone to Randhola Village to hand-over some documents to Arjunsinh. (DW-2) She also admits in the examination-in-chief that it was Arjunsinh who had arranged for the police-bandobast as early as 12/07/1991. (PW-2) 19. Learned advocate submitted that the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused in the alleged offence and submitted that it is significant that when the Prosecutrix met Prasannavadanbhai M. Mehta she did not disclose the names of any of the accused persons as being the accused in the incident and his statement dated 29/11/1992 given on oath before the Ld. C.J.M. during the course of S.202 Cr.P.C. inquiry clearly confirms this fact (Exh. -199)and even though he has denied this fact in his cross-examination (PW-9) Even assuming that the Prosecutrix fact that complaint (Exh. -148) speaks of 3 persons, 2 of which are accused Nos. 2 and 3, the Prosecutrix clearly does not know the identity of the 3rd person. Despite the categorical averment that the Prosecutrix knows each one of the accused (PW-2), yet, the M.LC. papers (Exh. -55) and treatment-papers (Exh. -59) give the identity of the rapist as 'somebody' coupled with the evidence of the treatment-doctor, it is clear that the Prosecutrix had not given the name of any assailant at the time of medical-examination. (PW.-1) The Prosecutrix also does not say that she had given the name of the accused persons to the treatment-doctor. -55) and treatment-papers (Exh. -59) give the identity of the rapist as 'somebody' coupled with the evidence of the treatment-doctor, it is clear that the Prosecutrix had not given the name of any assailant at the time of medical-examination. (PW.-1) The Prosecutrix also does not say that she had given the name of the accused persons to the treatment-doctor. (PW-2) Even in the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that 1 person out of the 3 persons who had abducted her was 'unknown' when she was asked about the incident but she had immediately tried to qualify the answer by saying that the 'unknown' was written as per the say of Mr. Arjunsinh Rathod, P.S.I. even though the question was never in this regard and it shows complete un-reliability of the Prosecutrix. (PW-2) It is stated by the complainant-victim in her complaint dated 31/07/1991 that "the investigation was going on well and therefore she was attacked", which is an admission that till 31/07/1991, the Prosecutrix had no grievance about the content of the complaint and hence the allegations against Rathod is an after-thought. He further submitted that it is also relevant that when the Prosecutrix met PW-4 in 1992, she did not make any grievance about the FIR has not been registered properly. He also submitted that it is clear from his evidence that on 11/12/1991, accused No. 1 was called to the office of D.S.P. and in the presence of complainant-victim, he has been let go with a warning that he should not cause harassment. Even though this fact has been denied by the Prosecutrix (PW-2) and PW-3 despite PW-2 admitting that she had given the consciously given answers to PW-10. (PW-2) However, this denial has been proved in the evidence of Gurbani (PW-10/Exh. -210) It is stated and submitted that both PW-2 & PW-3 have alleged no enmity or bias against PW-10. It is stated and submitted that it is not believable that the Dy.S.P. would merely call accused No. 1 and let him go with a reprimand that too in the presence of PW-2 & PW-3 if at these serious allegations against accused No. 1were really true as accused No. 1 would have been arrested or taken in custody then and there. It is significant that there is no grievance made against Dy.S.P., Ahir, P.S.I. and Gurbani. It is significant that there is no grievance made against Dy.S.P., Ahir, P.S.I. and Gurbani. It is a matter of record that accused No. 1 has been arrested only at 1505hrs on 17/02/1992. He also submitted that further, the prosecutrix in a letter dated 29/01/1992 to Mr. Mahapatra, D.I.G., Junagadh has not made any grievance that the complaint was not registered properly or that some accused persons who had committed rape on her have not been arrested. In fact the prosecutrix has attached the initial complaint along with this letter to the D.I.G. (Exh. 82) 20. Learned advocate submitted that the grievance against non-inclusion of accused No. 1 has been made long after the charge-sheet was filed by CW-1 on 13/09/1991 against accused Nos. 2 and 3 persons (CW-1). The Prosecutrix as well as PW-3 admit that 1st application disclosing the name of accused No. 1 was made about 1 1/2 months after the incident. (PW-2) & (PW-3) She also admits that the copies of all her applications to various authorities are lying at her house and not all of them has been given to her advocates but when she is specifically asked to produce one such application prior to January, 1992, then she suddenly cannot remember as to whether she has a copy of that application or not. Similarly, the Prosecutrix has introduced the theory of the use of 2 motorcycles as in cross-examination, she denies that it she has not stated in writing prior to January, 1992 about the use of 2 motor-cycles in the incident, however, when asked to produce a copy of such writing/application, she says that she does not remember whether she has it or not. (PW-2) when probed deeper, she comes with an explanation that some applications have been burnt in the fire in the house (PW-2) and the fire took place in January, 1992. It is stated and submitted that as accused No. 1was to be implicated, therefore the presence of the 2nd motorcycle surfaced many months later. She admits that she made no efforts to find out from the police about the efforts to arrest accused No. 1 particularly when he was very much in the village even 5 months after the incident. (PW-2) This significant as the Prosecutrix claims to have met Mr. She admits that she made no efforts to find out from the police about the efforts to arrest accused No. 1 particularly when he was very much in the village even 5 months after the incident. (PW-2) This significant as the Prosecutrix claims to have met Mr. Ranva, M.L.A. from her area about 1 1/2 months after the incident and 3 days thereafter she had again met the D.S.P. (PW-2) the prosecutrix claims that she does not know till today that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are on bail since 3/08/1991 and that they were released on anticipatory bail prior to 20/07/1991 (PW-2) It has been specifically been put to the prosecutrix that accused No. 1 was been implicated only because he had helped accused Nos. 2 and 3 secure bail. (PW-2). The prosecutrix has stated that she met advocates at Bhavnagar on her own about 5 months after the incident. (PW-2) She also admits that she had filed an application for cancellation of bail of accused Nos. 2 and 3 on 20/12/1991 before the Ld. Sessions Court and along with an affidavit. (PW-2) the Prosecutrix admits that she reads an application and then signs. (PW-2) In fact, the prosecutrix initially admitted that she had filed a bail-cancellation application (PW-2) and after sometime, she conveniently denied having filed any cancellation of bail application (PW-2) In fact this fact has been admitted in the cross-examination of PW-3 that bail-cancellation application was indeed filed after 2-3 months of filing the complaint. Hence, this conduct of filing repeated applications for cancellation of bail of the accused persons before the Trial Court and the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter denying having filed it only shows that the Prosecutrix is trying to hide the fact that she had total knowledge about the accused No. 1 not having joined the investigation and yet she did nothing about the same even though she was taking various steps to cancel the bail of accused Nos. 2 and 3 Yet, she had not made any application seeking for the arrest of accused No. 1 or making a grievance that accused No. 1 has not been arrested. 21. Learned advocate Mr. 2 and 3 Yet, she had not made any application seeking for the arrest of accused No. 1 or making a grievance that accused No. 1 has not been arrested. 21. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed submitted that even though the Prosecutrix has said that she does not remember that before the C.J.M., it has been stated that only accused No. 2 had removed the clothes and nothing is stated about accused No. 1 removing any clothes, yet before the Trial court she says that it has not so happened that accused No. 2 has taken-off her clothes and that the chaniya was snatched by accused No. 1. Both the evidence of Prasannavadan M. Mehta (PW-9) and Dr Kantaben Maru (PW-4) are respectable persons and PW-9 has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that A-1 had told that these facts were not true but the villagers had to compromise. (PW-9) It is stated and submitted that in that view of the matter, any utterances of accused Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be termed as extrajudicial confession in as much as they were not made voluntarily and under pressure from the village elders. Furthermore, it is stated and submitted that it is not coming on record who spoke what (PW-9) and therefore merely on the conjecture that the accused might have admitted their involvement, there cannot be any extra-judicial confession attributed to the present accused. In fact even though PW-9 speaks of having left the premises and returned back after sometime, yet PW-4 does not speak about this fact nor does she say that the alleged extra-judicial confession was made in the absence of PW-9. 22. Learned advocate further submitted that even though the Prosecutrix has said that she does not remember that before the C.J.M., it has been stated that only accused No. 2 had removed the clothes and nothing is stated about accused No. 1 removing any clothes, yet before the Trial court she says that it has not so happened that accused No. 2 has taken-off her clothes and that the chaniya was snatched by accused No. 1 (PW-2) It is significant that when the Prosecutrix given inconsistent account of the events to various persons. For example, she did not disclose the names of any of the accused persons as being the accused in the incident when she met Prasannavadanbhai M. Mehta and even though he has denied this fact in his cross-examination (PW-9), yet his statement dated 29/11/1992 given on oath before the Ld. C.J.M. during the course of S.202 Cr.P.C. inquiry clearly shows that no names were stated. (Exh. -199) He also submitted that even though the prosecutrix has said that she does not remember that accused No. 1 was called together by the D.S.P. And accused No. 1 was told not to bother the prosecutrix and that this was stated in her police-statement dated 11/12/1991 given to PW-10 (PW-2) but PW-10 has proved this contradiction and stated that PW-2 had stated so in her police-statement before him. (PW-10) The prosecutrix has specifically stated about the role of accused No. 1 in pelting stones and harassing her 1 1/2 months prior to the incident (PW-2) however, PW-10 has denied that she had ever said this fact in the police-statement before him. (PW-10) in fact one co-villager, Kanakben, who used to come and say that she should stay with accused Nos. 1 and 2 has not even been traced nor investigated and has not been examined who alone could have corroborated this fact. (PW-2). 23. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed submitted that there is adverse inference qua non-investigation against the witnesses. He submitted that the prosecutrix has spoken about one Kanakben, a co-villager, who used to come and say that she should stay with A-1 & A-2. However, the said Kanakben has not been examined. He also submitted that the prosecutrix has clearly spoken about one kaka & kaki staying very close to their house, yet they have neither been investigated nor been examined during trial as they would have been independent witness who could have given corroboration to the version of the fact that whether the accused person indeed were roaming around the house of the Prosecutrix during the relevant period. The shopkeeper from where PW-3 had purchased the articles has not been examined as well as the transport labourers who dropped the articles on 8/07/1991. Prior to the lodging of Exh. -148 on 11/07/1991, CW-1 had also received a wire-less message but the same is not produced or brought on record. The shopkeeper from where PW-3 had purchased the articles has not been examined as well as the transport labourers who dropped the articles on 8/07/1991. Prior to the lodging of Exh. -148 on 11/07/1991, CW-1 had also received a wire-less message but the same is not produced or brought on record. It is significant as it contains the earliest narration of PW-2 and the message passed by the D.S.P., Bhavnagar. (CW-1) The identity of the person who was working at the GEB along with the father of the Prosecutrix and the person who had informed the Prosecutrix and her husband about the hospitalization of her father has not been forthcoming as well as he has not been examined. 24. Per Contra, learned APP has strongly opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. He submitted that from the evidence of star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. victim and her husband PW 3, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and same is also proved by the documentary as well as oral evidence. He also submitted that the victim is rustic villager and she is also an illiterate lady and due to lack of knowledge, she made contradiction version, but the same is not ground to throw away oral version of the victim as well as her husband. He read the evidence of other witnesses examined by the prosecution and medical evidence and submitted that it may be possible that there is question of honour of the family of the victim comes into way and therefore, no lady can be come before the police with a specific allegation regarding her honour. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeals and confirm the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge considering the seriousness of the offences, in which the accused are involved. 25. I have heard both the parties and perused oral as well as documentary evidence. It is true that both the parties have argued the matters at length and the overall perusal of the evidence as well as submissions and reliance placed by the learned advocate Mr. Saiyed for the appellants, it appears that the Hon'ble SC in innumerable judgments has clarified that irrespective of the heinousness of the incident, there ought to be cogent, trust-worthy, reliable and legal evidence in order to record a finding of conviction. Saiyed for the appellants, it appears that the Hon'ble SC in innumerable judgments has clarified that irrespective of the heinousness of the incident, there ought to be cogent, trust-worthy, reliable and legal evidence in order to record a finding of conviction. The Hon'ble SC in Dinesh Jaiswal v. State of M.P., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 232 (para-10) has categorically opined that it is a settled principle of law that evidence of the prosecutrix is liable to be accepted save in exceptional circumstances and to hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story, is an argument that can never be accepted. The Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly stressed on the principle that the rule of prudence of corroboration in material particulars has no application in the case of prosecutrix evidence, yet, in case where broad improbabilities are brought on record, the court should look for some corroborative material in order to lend assurance. (See- a) Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1952 SC 52 (It would be impossible, indeed it would be dangerous to formulate the kind of evidence which should, or would, be regarded as corroboration. Its nature and extent must necessarily vary with circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged.); (b) Sidheswar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1958 SC 143 (the decision in Rameshwar's case, 1952 SCR 377 was approved and it was added that the nature of the corroborative evidence should be such as to lend assurance that the evidence of the prosecutrix can be safely acted upon.); (c) Janardan Tewari v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 927 ; (d) State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain, reported (1990) 1 SCC 550 (Para-16); (e) Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., reported in (1995) 5 SCC 518 ; (f) Shri Narayan Saha v. State of Tripura, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 775 ) 26. It is a settled principle of appreciation of oral evidence that people may lie but circumstances do not lie. The evidence of the prosecutrix, when considered as a whole does not have a ring of truth, is full of inherent improbabilities and exaggeration and lacks credibility. If the prosecutrix's version is not credible then there would be need for corroboration. (See Aman Kumar & Ors. The evidence of the prosecutrix, when considered as a whole does not have a ring of truth, is full of inherent improbabilities and exaggeration and lacks credibility. If the prosecutrix's version is not credible then there would be need for corroboration. (See Aman Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 379 .) It was observed by this Court in the case of Pratap Misra and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in (1977) 3 SCC 41 that where allegation is of rape by many persons and several times but no injury is noticed that certainly is an important factor and no corroboration is necessary if the prosecutrix's version is credible. 27. Court has also concluded that it appears that the victim has made exaggerated claims about severe-beating having been given by the Accused persons in order to gain the sympathy of the trial court and the same can never be the natural conduct of a truthful witness who is abusing the process of law in order to gain sympathy of the legal system to bolster her claim. The Ld. Trial Court has not considered the fact that not only the Prosecutrix has contradicted herself in material particulars and then her Husband has also parroted the same line which only goes on to show that both of them are not truthful. 28. The Ld. Trial Court has lightly dealt with the explanation given by the prosecutrix for the Delay in approaching the Umrala P.S. The Ld. Trial Court ought to have examined the inherent contradictions in the version of the Prosecutrix as well as the inter se contradiction with PW-3 as to the circumstances surrounding the manner in which the complaint was taken on 11/07/1991 and the conduct of the prosecutrix immediately after lodging the FIR. The Court has not considered the attending circumstances as to the reason why delay was caused in approaching the police, more particularly as to contradictory version having come on record whether or not they had made any excuse before the accused person before leaving for Bhavnagar on 10/07/1991 or whether the fact that the accused persons were keeping a watch on them. 29. The M.LC. 29. The M.LC. papers and treatment-papers give the identity of the rapist as 'somebody' coupled with the evidence of the treatment-doctor, it is clear that the Prosecutrix had not given the name of any assailant at the time of medical-examination. The Prosecutrix also does not say that she had given the name of the accused persons to the treatment-doctor. Hence, it is not believable that how the complaint (Exh. -148) speaks specifically of 3 persons, 2 of whom are specifically named and the same is absent in the history given to the treatment-doctor. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court has lightly overlooked a crucial fact that in the medical history given by the Prosecutrix to the treatment-doctor and where her husband was also present, she has given the medical history in the M.L.C. certificate shows that rape was committed by 'somebody' coupled with the admission of the prosecutrix that she knows all the present accused by name, suggests that the present accused persons were not the assailants who had committed the unspeakable acts. The Prosecutrix has categorically averred that she knows each one of the accused and therefore not naming the 3rd person in the complaint alongwith the fact that she has belatedly woken up and has tried to level allegations against accused No. 1 cannot be said to be an act of truthful witness. 30. It has been categorically reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in face of medical evidence which does not corroborate or when it wholly contradicts the version of the prosecutrix, the accused deserves to be acquitted. (See: (a) Yerumalla Latchiah v. State of A.P., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 713 ; (b) Bhaiyamiyan @ Jardar Khan and another v. State of M.P., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394 ); (c) Lilia v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 303 ) 31. It appears that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly come to a finding that these injuries corroborate the version of Prosecutrix. The Ld. Trial Court has on a mere conjecture reasoned that if the Prosecutrix could show these 'blade-injuries' to the court, it is not believable that the same would not have been shown to the treatment-doctor. Further, in these long drawn out proceedings which had earlier travelled to this Court, the Prosecutrix has never made any allegations against the treatment-doctor or alleged that the treatment-certificate was inaccurate. Further, in these long drawn out proceedings which had earlier travelled to this Court, the Prosecutrix has never made any allegations against the treatment-doctor or alleged that the treatment-certificate was inaccurate. It appears that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly concluded that as the defence has not been able to elicit anything in respect of the age-of-injury as it is a settled principle of criminal-jurisprudence that the burden of proof does not shift to the accused unless and until the prosecution has discharged its burden fully and satisfactorily. The burden of proving the age of injury will shift to the accused only if the prosecution has successfully proved that those cut injuries were caused during the incident which has not been supported by treatment-doctor. The court has erred in conjecturing and assuming that the face-injury may not have been mentioned in the M.L.C. papers as these injuries might have healed. 32. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court had found the non-seizure of the clothes worn by the prosecutrix for 5 days after the incident very strange. (Jai Krishna Mandal and another v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 534 (Para-6) In fact in the present case, there has been complete non-production of clothes worn by the Prosecutrix and very strangely the same was washed just prior to the lodging of the Complaint on 11/07/1991 despite the same being admittedly preserved for 5 days after the incident. The Ld. Trial Court has lightly discarded the argument that even the presence of A-1, much less his role has not been established by cogent evidence. The court of law has to consider the entire evidence in totality. The fact that the Ld. Trial Court has not allowed the application of the prosecution u/S. 319 of the Cr.P.C. as the ingredients of offences u/Ss. 201/202/204 of the IPC were not made out qua CW-1. It is significant that neither the prosecution nor the prosecutrix has preferred to pursue the cause any further, therefore certain legal consequences follow. This court cannot therefore ipso facto regard the complaint (Exh. -148) as being manipulated and it has to assess its evidentiary value in light of other material that has come on record. It is significant that neither the prosecution nor the prosecutrix has preferred to pursue the cause any further, therefore certain legal consequences follow. This court cannot therefore ipso facto regard the complaint (Exh. -148) as being manipulated and it has to assess its evidentiary value in light of other material that has come on record. In fact, it is improbable that if the entire FIR was registered under the pressure of the accused persons, then not a single name of the accused persons should have there in the FIR. 33. It is also found that the Ld. Trial Court has erred in convicting all the accused persons for the charges punishable u/Ss. 447 & 343 of the IPC and sentencing them for 2 years imprisonment concurrently along with fine as this entire allegation about these accused persons as the basic ingredients of wrongful restraint or criminal trespass has not been made out. It is stated and submitted that even if the entire allegation of the Prosecutrix and PW-3 is taken to be correct, then while they were in the house, a watch was kept on them between the night of 6/07/1991 to 10/07/1991 which by itself, without something else, is not sufficient to attract the ingredient of Ss. 343 & 447 of the I.P.C. In fact by the admission of PW-2, while they were going to lodge the complaint on 10/07/1991, they were met by A-2 (a fact not spoken by PW-3) who did not try to stop them or threaten them. Furthermore, inconsistent version has come on record. Prosecutrix has categorically stated that all the 8 accused persons were roaming around the house because of which she had felt threatened whereas the Prosecutrix's husband has stated that all the 8 accused-persons were roaming in the back-side of the house. This allegation of wrongful confinement is further belied from the fact that PW-3 has specifically admitted that he had received the delivery of the business related articles a few days after the incident. This allegation of wrongful confinement is further belied from the fact that PW-3 has specifically admitted that he had received the delivery of the business related articles a few days after the incident. It appears that the prosecution has to suffer adverse-inference qua non-investigation and non-examination of a) one Kanakben, a co-villager, who could have corroborated the story of the incident 1 1/2 month prior to 6/07/1991, b) the shopkeeper from where PW-3 had purchased the articles has not been examined as well as the transport labourers who dropped the articles on 8/07/1991, c) the wireless-message passed by the D.S.P., Bhavnagar prior to the lodging of Exh. -148 on 11/07/1991 to CW-1 which contains the earliest narration of events of PW-2 to the D.S.P., Bhavnagar, d) non-production of the scene of offence panchanama prepared by CW-1 at the instance of PW-2 and e) The identity of the person who was working at the GEB along with the father of the Prosecutrix and the person who had informed the Prosecutrix and her husband about the hospitalization of her father has not been forthcoming as well as he has not been examined. 34. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and reading of voluminous evidence on record, it can be said that the evidence of the prosecutrix suffers from inherent contradiction and broad improbabilities and is contradicted by the medical evidence. The version of events as narrated by the Prosecutrix is not natural and the aspect of delay has not been explained at all. The Prosecutrix has made self-contradictory statements and she does not inspire any confidence. In that view of matter, the evidence of PW-3 does not afford any corroboration, once the version of PW-2 is disbelieved. The prosecution case also suffers from non-examination/non-investigation into crucial materials and documents. 35. In the result, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the accused for the alleged offence. This Court is no in agreement with the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the appeals are required to be allowed. 36. The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in the Sessions Case Nos. 5 of 1992, 182 of 1992 and 65 of 1995 dated 18.2.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. Hence, the appeals are required to be allowed. 36. The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in the Sessions Case Nos. 5 of 1992, 182 of 1992 and 65 of 1995 dated 18.2.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are ordered to acquitted from the alleged offence and they are ordered to be released, if they are not required for any other offence. If the accused appellant/s, is/are on bail, then bail bonds stands cancelled. Record and proceedings are ordered to be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.