JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial Court No. 7-S/7 of 2008, dated 22.08.2008 vide which, learned trial court has acquitted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13th March, 2008, at 1.15 AM the prosecutrix (PW-1) accompanied by her brother Shri Anil Kumar and step mother Smt. Santosh Devi went to Police Post, Sarswati Nagar. There the former (prosecutrix) got entered daily diary report No. 17 averring therein that she is a resident of village Kuddu. She is studying in the 8th class in Government High School, Kuddu. On 12.3.2008 around 7.00 AM, she (prosecutrix) had gone from her house to their field. The said filed is below the road. Shri Suresh Kumar (accused) is familiar to her. He was standing on the road. She knows the accused as he keeps on visiting the house of his mama (maternal uncle) in village Kuddu. Spotting her, the accused asked her to come to the road. She inquired from the accused as to why he is calling her. On this the accused threatened that he has some work with her. Then, she went to the road. The accused started talking to her and took her at some distance from the road. Thereafter, the accused asked her to accompany him. She refused to do so. On this, the accused caught hold of her right arm and started pulling her towards the jungle. She raised the alarm, but in vain. The accused proclaimed that in case she cries for help, he will kill her. The accused took her at a lonely place in Sanail Jungle away from the road by catching hold of her arm. In the jungle, the accused made her to lie down and then put himself upon her. She started crying. The accused gagged her mouth with his hand and threatened that in case she raises hue and cry, he will do away with her life. She became panicky due to the fear of the accused. In the jungle, the accused made her to lie down and then put himself upon her. She started crying. The accused gagged her mouth with his hand and threatened that in case she raises hue and cry, he will do away with her life. She became panicky due to the fear of the accused. The accused then opened the string of her salwar inspite of her protest and had the sexual intercourse with her forcibly. After that the accused took her to his house in village Banpur against her will via the jungle. They reached the house of the accused at about 12 noon. None was there in the house of the accused at that time. The accused took her to a room of his house and had the coitus for the second time with her against her wish. 3. Thereafter, the accused made her to sit on the cot and went away to cook the food. The accused then served the meals to her. At about 8.00 PM her (complainant's) elder brother Shri Anil Kumar and Chacha (uncle) Shri Deepan Lal reached the house of the accused while searching for her. Seeing them she started weeping. She narrated the incident to her brother and uncle who brought her with them to village Kuddu. At Kuddu, the entire episode was divulged by her in front of her step mother Smt. Santosh Devi. Her (PW-1's) natural mother Smt. Bimla Devi was not there in the house as she (Bimla) had gone to the house of her brother etc. Nerwa on 10.03.2008. Her (PW-1's) father is serving as a driver in the Forest Corporation and posted at Nahan. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 506(II) IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of case, the prosecution, in all, examined 10 witnesses to establish its case. The trial court acquitted the accused, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General emphatically argued that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt. The statements of the prosecution witnesses have not been appreciated to its right perspective. The trial court acquitted the accused, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General emphatically argued that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt. The statements of the prosecution witnesses have not been appreciated to its right perspective. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of acquittal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case meticulously. 7. Victim (PW-1) deposed that she studied up to the 8th class. On 12.03.2008, at about 7.00 AM, she went away for answering the call of nature. She further stated that she had gone to the fields. Accused, who was standing on the road. He asked her to come to the road on the pretext that he has some urgent work. Then, she went to the road where the accused was standing. The accused started talking to her and took her with him at some distance. The accused asked her to accompany him to the jungle. When she refused to accompany him, then the accused caught hold of her arm and took her forcibly towards the jungle. She cried for help, but none heard her shrieks, as none else was there in the jungle. The accused threatened that in case, she do not accompany him to the jungle, he will kill her. The accused took her to Sandail Jungle. In the jungle, the accused forced her to lie down. She cried for help. None came to her rescue. The accused threatened that in case she raised the alarm, he will kill her. The accused committed rape on her. Thereafter, the accused took her to his house in village Banpur via jungle. Further stated that they reached Banpur at about 1.00 P.M. None was there in the house of the accused at that time. In his house, the accused again raped her. The accused kept her in his house almost up to 8.00 PM. Then, her brother Anil Kumar and uncle Deepan Lal reached the house of the accused. On seeing them, she started weeping. She narrated the incident to Anil Kumar and Deepan Lal. They brought her back to her house. After returning to her house, she narrate the incident to her step mother Smt. Santosh Devi. Then, her brother Anil Kumar and uncle Deepan Lal reached the house of the accused. On seeing them, she started weeping. She narrated the incident to Anil Kumar and Deepan Lal. They brought her back to her house. After returning to her house, she narrate the incident to her step mother Smt. Santosh Devi. Her real mother Smt. Bimla Devi was away to her parental house at that time. Her father was at Nahan as he serving there. On the same day, during the night, she along with others went to Police Post, Saraswati Nagar. There they reported the matter to the police. Her signatures were taken by the police. The copy the rapat is mark-A. Further stated that she was got medically examined by the police. The incident was narrated by her to the doctor as well. Her clothes were taken into possession by the doctor. 8. In her cross examination, the prosecutrix stated that they are 7 brothers and sisters in all. Four sisters and one brother are elder to her. One brother is younger to her All of us live in the same house. Self stated, all her brothers and sisters are elder to her have been married. Her married brother lives in the house in which she reside. Her mother Bimla had gone to the house of her parents one day prior to the incident. Her father had left for Nahan on 7th March, 2008. The field where she had gone for answering the call of nature is one kilometer away from the house. It was admitted by her that people keep on moving in that area. She also admitted that there was a school and road near the field. The accused was standing on the road which is at a higher level than the field. Further admitted that she knew the accused prior to the date of the incident. Self stated, the uncle of the accused lives in her village Kuddi. She further admitted that she knew the accused for the last about 5 years prior to the date of the incident. Further admitted that her family members also knew the accused since long. She and her family members were not on visiting terms to the house of the uncle of the accused. She further admitted that the accused and his uncle also never came to her house in Kuddu. Further admitted that her family members also knew the accused since long. She and her family members were not on visiting terms to the house of the uncle of the accused. She further admitted that the accused and his uncle also never came to her house in Kuddu. She further admitted that accused called her by name when he was standing on the road. Further stated that she and the accused started talking to each other and moving towards the opposite direction of her house. The accused started talking to her about the affairs of his family. At that time, the accused did not force her to accompany him. Further admitted that she was walking with the accused on the road on her own. She further admitted that when she and accused were moving on the road, none came and they walked for about 2-3 kilometers while talking to each other. No way leads to the house the accused from the rasta on which they were moving. The path ended in the jungle where the accused had taken her. Prosecutrix also admitted that the accused took her on foot to his house from Sanail Jungle and they walked for about-4 hours. She further admitted that in between Sanail Jungle and the house of the accused three villages i.e. Nakot, Salna and Kasta fall and there are houses in these villages and people live there. She further admitted that the accused crossed the villages during the day time. Self stated, we moved through the villages secretly. Further admitted that there is no house near to the house of the accused and she remained in the house of the accused up to 8.00 PM. Further admitted that the accused served me meals in his house which she took. Further admitted that none came to the house of the accused so long as she remain there. Further stated that Anil Kumar is her step brother. From the entire version of the prosecutrix it is clear that the prosecutrix accompany the accused on her own and the allegations set out later on by her are an afterthought. 9. Brother of the prosecutrix namely Anil Kumar entered in the witness box as PW-2 and stated that prosecutrix is his step sister. They live in the same house. Further stated that their father is posted at Nahan. 9. Brother of the prosecutrix namely Anil Kumar entered in the witness box as PW-2 and stated that prosecutrix is his step sister. They live in the same house. Further stated that their father is posted at Nahan. Smt. Bimla Devi had gone to the house of her parents in Nerwa. On 12/03/2008 at 7.00 AM, the prosecutrix had gone away from home to answer the call of nature. She did not return to home. Then he searched for her, but in vain. On inquiry, his chacha (uncle) Pramod Kumar told him that he had seen the prosecutrix going on the road with the accused. Thereafter, he, Pramod Kumar and Deepan Lal went to the house of the accused in village Banpur. They reached Banpur at about 8.00 PM. The prosecutrix was there in the house of the accused. After spotting us, the prosecutrix started weeping. She told them that the accused had brought her forcibly to his house. She also told us that the accused committed rape on her in the jungle and, thereafter, in his house. When they reached the house of the accused, the prosecutrix was sitting on a cot. A bed sheet was spread over it. The accused was there in the house. From Banpur, they brought the prosecutrix to their house in Kuddu. They then went to Police Post, Saraswati Nagar and lodged the report. He was joined by the police during the investigation. He had gone to the house of the accused with the police in Banpur. A bed sheet which was over the cot was taken into custody by the police from the house of the accused. A memo in this regard was prepared. The same is Ext. PA. It bears his signatures as a witness. S/Sh. Pramod Kumar and Deepan Lal had also signed the memo. 10. In cross examination, he stated that he is a driver by profession for the last about three years and they are seven brothers and sisters in all. Further stated that he is married and the prosecutrix is younger to him by 3 to 4 years. Further stated that he started searching for prosecutrix on 12.03.2008 at about 8.00 A.M. Sh. Pramod Kumar told him at about 8.30 AM that he had seen the prosecutrix and accused moving together on the road near the school. Thereafter, he went towards the school in search of his sister. Further stated that he started searching for prosecutrix on 12.03.2008 at about 8.00 A.M. Sh. Pramod Kumar told him at about 8.30 AM that he had seen the prosecutrix and accused moving together on the road near the school. Thereafter, he went towards the school in search of his sister. The road on which the accused and the prosecutrix were seen moving by Pramod Kumar leads to Tueni and the house of the accused. The house of the accused about 15 kilometers away from the place where she and the accused spotted by Pramod Kumar. On the way to the village of the accused, other villages come. The people reside there. After 8.30 he firstly went to the jungle and thereafter, in the evening, they went to the house of the accused. As per this witness, he, Pramod and Deepan Lal had gone to the house of the accused. There are several houses near to the house of the accused in village Banpur. They stayed in the house of the accused for about 10-15 minutes. From Banpur, they came to Kuddu along with the prosecutrix. Further stated that the accused did not accompany them. He told the police that the accused had accompanied them. Again said, that they brought the accused from Banpur to Kuddu. He, prosecutrix, his mother Santosh Kumari, Deepan Lal and Pramod had gone to the Police Post. He and the prosecutrix had gone to the jungle and the house of the accused with the police on 15.03.2008. He further averred that the spot was inspected by the police and the investigation was done. Ext. PA was prepared by the police in the house of the accused. He admitted that he and the prosecutrix knew the accused prior to the date of the incident. He stated that application Ext. PB of the police was received by him for supplying the date of birth eradicate relating to the prosecutrix. He admitted that Sh. Yash Pal Singh prepared the certificate Ext. PC and handed it over per memo Ext. PD. He has brought the school admission and withdrawal register to the Court. As per their record, the prosecutrix was born on 15.5.1994. In the cross examination, he deposed that the entry in the register was made by him. No birth certificate was seen by him. PC and handed it over per memo Ext. PD. He has brought the school admission and withdrawal register to the Court. As per their record, the prosecutrix was born on 15.5.1994. In the cross examination, he deposed that the entry in the register was made by him. No birth certificate was seen by him. He made the entry in the register on the basis of the school leaving certificate of the 5th class issued by the primary school authorities. He admitted that there are cutting in the register. He does not know that the date of birth of the prosecutrix mentioned in the register is in fact incorrect. 11. Sh. Yash Pal Singh (PW-3) was another witnesses who stepped into the witnesses Box. He stated that he is posted as a Teacher in Government High School, Kuddu. He stated that application Ext. PB of the police was received by him for supplying the date of birth eradicate relating to the prosecutrix. He prepared the certificate Ext. PC and handed it over, per memo Ext. PD. As per their record, the prosecutrix was born on 15.05.1994. 12. In the cross examination, he deposed that the entry in the register was made by him. No birth certificate was seen by him. He made the entry in the register on the basis of the school leaving certificate of the 5th class issued by the primary school authorities. He admitted that there are cutting in the register. He does not know that the date of birth of the prosecutrix mentioned in the register is infact incorrect. 13. Sh. Mukesh Rupta (PW-4) was also stepped into witnesses box. He is the Secretary, of Gram Panchayat, Kuddu. He testified that application Ext.PE was received by him for supplying the birth certificate of the prosecutrix. Certificate Ext. PF was prepared by him on the basis of the pariwar register and then given to the police vide memo Ext. PG which bears his signatures. Ext. PH is the copy of the pariwar register Ex. PF is correct as per the original. 14. In cross examination, he stated that he has not brought the register of birth and death in the Court. He admitted that the register which he has brought to the Court i.e. pariwar register is torn. PG which bears his signatures. Ext. PH is the copy of the pariwar register Ex. PF is correct as per the original. 14. In cross examination, he stated that he has not brought the register of birth and death in the Court. He admitted that the register which he has brought to the Court i.e. pariwar register is torn. There is no certificate on the register regarding the pages it has Pariwar (family) register and birth/death register are maintained separately. Pariwar register is kept to show the members of the family. The date of birth mentioned in the register of births and deaths is relevant. The entries in the register have not been made by him. He refuted that a false certificate was issued by him at the instance of police. 15. H.C. Gopal Singh (PW-5) brought the rojnamcha register and proved Ext. PJ i.e. the copy of rapat No. 17, dated 13.3.2008. He continued to state that the said rapat was got entered by the prosecutrix. It bears her signatures. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination along with the application Ext. PK. 16. Lady Constable Dayawanti (PW-6) deposed that on 13.3.2008, she had accompanied the prosecutrix to Primary Centre, Saraswati Nagar, for her medical examination. The medical officer handed over four sealed parcels and the MLC of the prosecutrix to her. She (PW-6) in turn handed them to MHC Mukesh Kumar of Police Station, Jubbal. During the period, the case property remained with her of the accused which stands admitted by the defence. It depicts that the accused was found capable of performing the sexual act. 17. MHC Mukesh Kumar (PW-7) of Police Station. 23, Jubbal testified that on 13.3.2008, Lady Constable Dayawanti deposited four sealed parcels with him along with the sample seal in the malkhana. Entries in this regard were made in the malkhana register. Thereafter, on 14 and 17 March, 2008, various parcels were deposited with him by constable Jagjit Singh. Entries in this respect were also made in the malkhana register. All the parcels were sent by him to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga on 18.3.2008 vide R.C. No. 15/08 through constable Rajesh Kumar for chemical analysis. On his return to the Police Station, constable Rajesh Kumar handed over the R.C. to him. So long as the case property remained in his (PW-7's) custody, the same remained. 18. All the parcels were sent by him to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga on 18.3.2008 vide R.C. No. 15/08 through constable Rajesh Kumar for chemical analysis. On his return to the Police Station, constable Rajesh Kumar handed over the R.C. to him. So long as the case property remained in his (PW-7's) custody, the same remained. 18. Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-8) stated that eight sealed parcels and sample seals, entrusted to him by MHC Mukesh Kumar (PW-7) vide R.C. No. 15/08, dated 18.3.2008. All the parcels were deposited by him on the same day in FSL, Junga. After returning to the Police Station, the R.C. was given by him. During the period, the case property remained with him, the same remained intact Pursuant to the police request Ext. PK the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Seema Sharma (PW-10) She issued the medico legal certificate Ext. PR. The clothes and vaginal swab etc, of the prosecutrix were preserved by her, sealed and handed over to the police for chemical test. The prosecutrix was referred to Civil Hospital, Rohru for X-Ray examination and determination of her age. Final opinion was reserved by her till the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner. On 5.5.2008, the report of FSL, Junga was shown to her by the police. As per the said report, human semen was detected on the salwar and vaginal slides of the prosecutrix. She (PW-10) then gave the opinion that the prosecutrix undergone the sexual act within a period of around 24 hours. The Radiologist, DDU Hospital, Shimla, suggested that the age of victim was more than 18 years. The skeletal age of the patient is 25, estimated on the basis of various X-rays. In her cross examination, she testified that as and when sexual act takes place between a male and female, the first part of the female which comes in contact is Labia Majora. Hymen can be torn due to various reasons apart from the sexual act. She admitted that presence or absence of hymen is not a criteria for coitus. In case of forcible penetration, there are chances of the injuries being there on the private pars of a female. She admitted that if a lady is subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, there are all probabilities that she will suffer some injury. In this case, no injury was found. 19. In case of forcible penetration, there are chances of the injuries being there on the private pars of a female. She admitted that if a lady is subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, there are all probabilities that she will suffer some injury. In this case, no injury was found. 19. PW-9 ASI Jaswinder Singh is the investigator. He stated "In the month of March, 2008, he was posted as Incharge, Police Post, Saraswati Nagar: The file was handed over to me for investigation. He went to the spot in Sanail Jungle on 13/03/2008 and prepared the map Ext. PM showing the place of the incident. The spot was identified by the prosecutrix. The accused was arrested on the same day. He was got medically examined. Application Ext. PN in this regard was moved by him. The MLC of the accused was collected. The parcels containing the underwear etc. of the accused, which were duly sealed, were handed over to him by the doctor. The same were deposited with the MHC. On 15.03.2008, he went to the house of the accused along with the prosecutrix and others. Site plan Ext. PO showing the house of the accused was prepared by him. Mattress Ext. P-3 which was identified by the prosecutrix was taken into possession from the house of the accused per memo Ext. PA and sealed. The same was also deposited with the MHC. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by him as per their version. Certificates relating to the date of birth of the prosecutrix were collected from the school and the Panchayat. A (Pagdandi) footpath goes from Sanail Jungle via the jungle to the house of the accused. No house is near to the house of the accused. The houses are at some distance. After the completion of investigation, he handed over the file to SHO Pritam Singh for preparing the challan. The challan was prepared by SI Pritam Singh. It bears his signatures. He identify the same since he had worked with him. The FIR Ext. PP has also been signed by SI Pritam Singh. The accused is present in the Court. In his cross examination, he stated that the prosecutrix and her brother had come to Police Post, Saraswati Nagar at 1.30 AM on 13.03.2008. The prosecutrix was accompanied by her brother, step mother and an uncle (chacha). Firstly, the daily diary report Ext. PP has also been signed by SI Pritam Singh. The accused is present in the Court. In his cross examination, he stated that the prosecutrix and her brother had come to Police Post, Saraswati Nagar at 1.30 AM on 13.03.2008. The prosecutrix was accompanied by her brother, step mother and an uncle (chacha). Firstly, the daily diary report Ext. PJ was entered. Then, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. He had accompanied the prosecutrix for her medical examination to PHC, Saraswati Nagar From the hospital, he went with the prosecutrix to the spot in Sanail Jungle. The prosecutrix etc. might have come in a vehicle to the Police Post for lodging the report. From the hospital, we took lift in a private vehicle and went to the spot. The step mother, brother Anil Kumar and chacha of the prosecutrix had accompanied us to the spot. We reached Sanail Jungle on 13.03.2008 at about 12.30 noon. The spot is about 1.5 kms. Away from the house of the prosecutrix. If one goes from the house of the prosecutrix to Sanail Jungle. There is a pucca road and school on the way. There were no blood stains etc. on the spot. The prosecutrix has one brother and one sister. The brother is elder one. He is aged about 18-19 years. Next to the brother is the prosecutrix. He came to know at the time of investigation that the prosecutrix is 3-4 years younger to her brother. He did not join the natural mother of the prosecutrix namely Bimla Devi and Sh. Shyan Lal (father of the prosecutrix) during the investigation. Self stated, both of them were not there in the house on that day. He had demanded from the father etc. of the prosecutrix her date of birth certificate which they were not having. The distance between Sanail Jungle and the house of the accused is only 1-5 kms. on foot. He had gone to the house of the accused via 'pagdandi'(footpath). Further stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the 'pagdandi' (footpath) passes through villages Nakot, Salna and Kasta. These villages are populated. Further stated that they reached the house of the accused on 15.03.2008 at about 1.30 PM. He denied that the houses are there abutting the house of the accused. Self stated, the houses are at some distance. Further stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the 'pagdandi' (footpath) passes through villages Nakot, Salna and Kasta. These villages are populated. Further stated that they reached the house of the accused on 15.03.2008 at about 1.30 PM. He denied that the houses are there abutting the house of the accused. Self stated, the houses are at some distance. He had inquired from the neighbours of the accused about the incident. They knew nothing. Further stated that it is incorrect to suggest that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses of his own just to support the false case of the prosecution. 20. This is primarily the evidence on the strength of which the prosecution wants the conviction of the accused. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh and others, (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 384 as under:- "x x x x x x x x x x The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not over-look. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl of a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl of a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be over-looked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain ( 1990 (1) SCC 550 ) Ahmadi, J. (as the Lord Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Bench summarised the position in the following words: (SCC p. 559, para 16) "A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the Prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction of her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence." 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhu Vs. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence." 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 57 held as under:- "6. It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary. Even if there is consent, the act will still be a 'rape', if the girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim. Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim especially on the forearms, writs, face, breast, thighs and back are indicative of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault. The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case." 23. In Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "20. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case." 23. In Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "20. It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under 1 Page 12 the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 21. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony. (Vide: Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. and Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra). 22. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. (Vide: Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra. 23. In Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, this Court while dealing with the issue held: (SCC p. 535, para 4) "4. .......the only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed." 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manoharlal Vs. .......the only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed." 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manoharlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases 587 held as under:- "8. Though as a matter of law the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can sufficiently be relied upon to bring home the case against the accused, in the instant case we find her version to be improbable and difficult to accept on its face value. The law on the point is very succinctly stated in Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), to which one of us (Dipak Misra, J). was a party, in following terms: (SCC p. 178, paras 29 and 21) "20. It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence 4 Page 5 and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 21. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject-matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial which may lend assurance to her testimony." (emphasis in original) 9. Having found it difficult to accept her testimony on its face value, we searched for support from other material but find complete lack of corroboration on material particulars. First, the medical examination of the victim did not result in any definite opinion that she was subjected to rape. Having found it difficult to accept her testimony on its face value, we searched for support from other material but find complete lack of corroboration on material particulars. First, the medical examination of the victim did not result in any definite opinion that she was subjected to rape. Secondly, Riyaz who was like a brother to the victim and thus a close confidant, has not supported the case of the prosecution and has completely denied having met her when she allegedly narrated the incident to him. Thirdly the person who was 5 Page 6 suffering from fever and to whose house she was first taken by the appellant was not examined at all. Fourthly, the policeman who the victim met during the night was also not examined. Fifthly, neither the brother nor any of the parents of the victim were examined to corroborate the version that she had come from the village of her brother and alighted around 10:00 P.M. at Bajna bus stand. Lastly, the sequence of events as narrated would show that she had allegedly accompanied the appellant to various places. In the circumstances, we find extreme difficulty in relying upon the version of the victim alone to bring home the charge against the appellant. We are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant." 25. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 406, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "19. We have carefully heard both the parties at length and have also given our conscious thought to the material on record and relevant provisions of The Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC"). In the instant case, the prosecutrix was an adult and mature lady of around 40 years at the time of incident. It is admitted by the prosecutrix in her testimony before the trial court that she was in relationship with the appellant for the last two years prior to the incident and the appellant used to stay overnight at her residence. After a perusal of copy of FIR and evidence on record the case set up by the prosecutrix seems to be highly unrealistic and unbelievable. 23. After a perusal of copy of FIR and evidence on record the case set up by the prosecutrix seems to be highly unrealistic and unbelievable. 23. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecution is neither believable nor reliable to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant. We are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not based on a careful re-appraisal of the evidence on record by the High Court and there is no material evidence on record to show that the appellant is guilty of the charged offences i.e., offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 of IPC and offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 part I of IPC." 26. Coming to the facts of the present case, when we compare the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3 one thing which is apparent and evident is this that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of these three vital witnesses. From the facts it is clear that the accused and prosecutrix knew each other since long and have love affairs with each other. In cross examination, she admitted everything and there is nothing which goes against the accused. The prosecutrix (PW-1) gave her age as 14 years while testifying in the Court. Strangely, she did not state on oath that she is 14 years old. Even she did not mention her exact date of birth on oath while testifying as PW-1. While drawing attention to Exts. PC and PF i.e. the birth certificates issued by the school and panchayat authorities as well as Ext. PH i.e. the copy of the pariwar register, the learned PP argued that the prosecutrix was born on 15.5.1994 and she was less than 14 years of age at the time of incident. On the other hand while taking into consideration the statement of Dr. (Mrs.) Seema Sharma (PW-10), the medical evidence suggests that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age at the relevant time. In these circumstances, the age of the prosecutrix is definitely more than 18 years on the date of the incident. 27. Brother of the prosecutrix namely Anil Kumar (PW-2) entered in the witness box and stated that prosecutrix is his step sister. They resides in the same house. In these circumstances, the age of the prosecutrix is definitely more than 18 years on the date of the incident. 27. Brother of the prosecutrix namely Anil Kumar (PW-2) entered in the witness box and stated that prosecutrix is his step sister. They resides in the same house. The house of the accused is about 15 kilometers away from the place where she and the accused spotted by Pramod Kumar. From the statement of this witness, nothing wrong goes in favour of the accused as it is an admitted fact that the accused and prosecutrix knew each other since long and have affairs with each other. 28. PW-3 has deposed he and the prosecutrix knew the accused prior to the date of the incident. He stated that application Ext. PB of the police was received by him for supplying the date of birth eradicate relating to the prosecutrix. He admitted that Sh. Yash Pal Singh prepared the certificate Ext. PC and handed it over per memo Ext. PD. He has brought the school admission and withdrawal register to the Court. As per their record, the prosecutrix was born on 15.5.1994. 29. In the cross examination, he deposed that the entry in the register was made by him. No birth certificate was seen by him. He made the entry in the register on the basis of the school leaving certificate of the 5th class issued by the primary school authorities. He admitted that there are cutting in the register. He does not know that the date of birth of the prosecutrix mentioned in the register is in fact incorrect. 30. The prosecutrix did not mention her exact date of birth on oath while testifying as PW-1. School certificate regarding the age i.e. Ext. PC was proved by Shri Yash Pal (PW-3). He deposed that this certificate was issued by him on the basis of the school admission and withdrawal register. The entry in such register was made by him (PW-3) on the basis of the school leaving certificate of the 5th class issued by Primary school Authorities. No birth certificate was seen by him. He admitted that there are cuttings in the register. Further stated that he does not know that the date of birth of the prosecutrix detailed in the school leaving certificate and the register is actually wrong. The other certificate i.e. Ext. No birth certificate was seen by him. He admitted that there are cuttings in the register. Further stated that he does not know that the date of birth of the prosecutrix detailed in the school leaving certificate and the register is actually wrong. The other certificate i.e. Ext. PF was issued by Shri Mukesh Rupta (PW-4), Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kuddu, on the basis of the entries existing in the pariwar register (PH), which is only to record the members of Pariwar(family). 31. Besides, this another relevant aspect of the matter is that it stands established on record that victim and the accused were not strangers to each other and were well known to each other, as the victim had herself admitted this fact. There is no cogent explanation given by the victim as to why she did not raise any hue and cry when accused purportedly took her towards jungle or when she was staying with the accused at his house. There is no cogent explanation coming forth from the version of victim about date of birth. All these facts create a serious doubt over the case of the prosecution, in fact, the version which has been put forth by the victim and the statement does not seem to be cogent and reliable. 32. Simultaneously, as discussed above, the statements of PW2 and PW3 vis-à-vis the statements other witnesses are not supporting the case of the prosecution. 33. It is settled law that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. This is for the reason that the prosecutrix stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. However, the fact still remains that the testimony of the prosecutrix on the face of it has to be acceptable. {See State of U.P. Vs. Pappu alias Yunus and another (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 594}. 34. In the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix on the face of it does not seem to be acceptable nor does it seem to be trustworthy so as to be made basis for the conviction of the accused. 35. {See State of U.P. Vs. Pappu alias Yunus and another (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 594}. 34. In the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix on the face of it does not seem to be acceptable nor does it seem to be trustworthy so as to be made basis for the conviction of the accused. 35. Though, it is settled law that corroboration is not sine qua non for conviction in a rape case, however, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 , in which it has been observed as under:- "The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge...." 36. It is settled law that in cases under Sections 363, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but for that the testimony of the prosecutrix has to be cogent, reliable, trustworthy and truthful. In our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, none of the above mentioned ingredients are present in the testimony of the prosecutrix. Neither her statement is cogent nor the same is reliable or trustworthy. On the contrary, it is apparent from the perusal of her statement that she had willfully done everything. 37. Therefore, on the basis of the material on record, in our considered view, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove a case under Sections 363, 376 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any perversity nor any infirmity with the judgment of acquittal and the findings returned in this regard by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Bail bonds are cancelled.