JUDGMENT : 1. This conviction appeal has been filed by Ahktar Hussain, which is directed against judgment dated 30.03.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, in case FIR No. 148/1996 registered with Police Station Billawar, whereby appellant/accused namely Akhtar Hussain has been convicted under Sections 451, 506 and 376 read with 109 RPC. Accordingly Court below on 30.03.2005 has sentenced the appellant/accused for rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under section 376/109 RPC and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months; rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 506 RPC and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 451 RPC and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months . All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that co-accused Gulzar Ahmed has been proceeded against under Section 512 Cr.P.C. by the learned trial Court during trial. 3. Prosecution case is that on 23rd October, 1996, complainant (hereinafter to be referred as prosecutrix) accompanied by her mother-Smt. Zainab R/o Lohari submitted a written application before Incharge Police Post, Malhar to the effect that in the intervening night of 21/22.10.1996 at mid-night when the prosecutrix was sleeping in her parental house and her younger brothers and sisters were also sleeping, somebody called for opening the door, she did not open the door and asked as to who he was, why the door should be opened and what job he has? After 2-4 minutes that person opened the door, entered into the room and caught hold of her and dragged her out. She raised alarm and cried for help, but nobody heard, as their house was situated at a lonely place, having no other house nearby. That person was identified by her as Gulzar Ahmed S/o Ali Akbar and had threatened her to keep mum or will be done to death. The assailant removed her trousers forcibly adjacent to her house and committed rape upon her. Another person was with the said assailant-offender, but that companion did not indulge in any bad act except used to tell her to keep mum, not to raise alarm otherwise she will be done to death. The assailant removed her trousers forcibly adjacent to her house and committed rape upon her. Another person was with the said assailant-offender, but that companion did not indulge in any bad act except used to tell her to keep mum, not to raise alarm otherwise she will be done to death. Her mother is being not present at home that night and father having gone to Shimla to work as labourer and her mother having returned that day, so has presented the report. This report has been entered in the daily diary as Report No. 9 dated 23rd October, 1996 by the Police Post, Malhar and the offence having been found to have been committed. Request has been made to the Police Station, Billawar, whereupon a case bearing FIR No. 148/96 for offence under Section 376 RPC has been registered by the Police Station, Billawar. 4. After completion of the investigation by Incharge Police Post, Malhar-Sh. Chain Singh, ASI, offences under Sections 451, 376, 506 RPC were found established against the accused-Gulzar Ahmed , whereas the accused-Akhter Hussain was found involved under section 451, 376 read with section 109 RPC 5. Accused-Gulzar was charge-sheeted by court below for offences under Sections 451, 376 and 506 RPC, whereas Akhtar Hussain was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 451, 376 and 109 RPC vide order dated 17th February, 1997. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. As already mentioned, accused Gulzar was proceeded under section 512 Cr.P.C during trial. 7. Court below after trial, convicted accused Akhtar Hussain and sentenced him accordingly. 8. I have heard the counsel for appellant as well as State counsel. With the assistance of counsel, I have gone through the evidence on record. Before appreciating the evidence the brief resumes of statements of witnesses read as under:- PW-Prosecutrix:- The victim has stated that accused are known to her. She has got married to one-Nasar Ali. Some three years back, while she was in her parental house at place Lohari, the accused came there during night and asked to open the door. She did not open the door, as she was alone and had only younger brothers and sisters there. She has got married to one-Nasar Ali. Some three years back, while she was in her parental house at place Lohari, the accused came there during night and asked to open the door. She did not open the door, as she was alone and had only younger brothers and sisters there. The accused opened the door by kicks and caught hold of her and dragged her on the roof of her shalwar, laid her on the ground, removed his own clothes, mounted upon her and had sexual intercourse with her by penetrating the penis into her private part. He continued it for three hours, while as the accused-Akhtar did not commit any sexual act and when Gulzar completed the act, the accused-Akhter Hussain also tried to catch her, but she did not allow him. Then the accused ran away. She raised alarm, whereupon her cousin-Ali Moha and Som Raj came there. Her mother was not present and returned the next day, whereupon she revealed the incident to her mother. When her cousin and Som Raj came to her house on hearing alarm, she had told them about the occurrence as well. The accused-Gulzar is her relation from in-laws side. After her mother returned thereafter, she lodged a written report. The report has been admitted as correct by her and has been marked as EXPW-S. She was then subjected to medical examination and her clothes had been seized that had been produced before her. One ring had been placed on her supurdari by the police and has brought that with. The contents of supurdnama have been admitted as correct by her and the same has been market as ESPW-S/1. In the cross-examination by the counsel for accused No.1-Gulzar Ahmed, she has stated that her mother had returned next day morning after the occurrence and thereafter, the report had been lodged in the police. Her mother had returned at 5 in the evening. Her mother and cousin were with her at the time of lodging the report. She has admitted that she did not lodge the report in the morning, as her mother had not returned back by that time and her mother returned in the afternoon. Her parental house is at an isolated place and no other house is adjacent to that place. The houses of Ali Mohd. and Som Raj are at the distance of half a kilometer. Her parental house is at an isolated place and no other house is adjacent to that place. The houses of Ali Mohd. and Som Raj are at the distance of half a kilometer. She had got the report drafted by the police, narrated the matter also and the police wrote that. She had produced the clothes herself in the police post 3rd day after the occurrence. She had been taken for medical check up to Billawar on the same day when she lodged the report before the police. They had reached there at 2 in the night and were accompanied by cousin and mother. From Billawar, Police Station, where they had reached at 7 in the morning, she had been taken to Hospital on that day, from where she had returned to her parental house. When Gulzar had removed her clothes, those had been kept on a side. The accused had broken bolt of the door of their house by kicks. Gulzar had some pistol like object and had threatened her that in case she raised alarm, she will be done to death. The house of her parents is a kacha house and the roof is of clay. That day, it had not rained. The sky was clear, but it was a dark night. She had identified the accused by their voice. She was knowing the accused-Gulzar for the last two years, as he used to visit her in-law’s house frequently being a resident of that village. The accused-Akhtar had been seen by her that very day for the first time. She has made a true statement and her cousin-Ali Mohd. and another person had come during the night when she had raised alarm and had revealed them about the episode. Her statement had been recorded by the police on 3rd day after the occurrence. She had revealed the entire facts to the police. She had revealed to police that Gulzar accused had threatened her with a pistol. She has stated that the accused took her on the roof and not on one side of the house, as mentioned in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. She was not having good relations with her in-laws those days, thus, was putting in her parental house. She had not changed the clothes, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. P.C. She was not having good relations with her in-laws those days, thus, was putting in her parental house. She had not changed the clothes, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. She has denied that she has lodged a false report against Gulzar, as he happens to be a friend of her husband. In cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused No. 2-Akhtar Hussain, she has stated that the day she had lodged the report in Police Post, Malhar, she was wearing the same clothes, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. Thereafter, on her return to home, she changed the clothes and went to Billawar. She was not feeling well and was having menses those days. The accused-Gulzar had dragged her and took her to the roof. She has resisted and tried her best, but had not succeeded. Many stones are outside her house. She had come to Kathua one day earlier along with her parents. Akhter-accused was not armed, but had threatened her. She had sustained scratches as well. PW2-Smt. Zanib (mother of the prosecutrix) has stated that the accused are known to her and the prosecutrix is her daughter. Some three years back, she had gone to the house of her other daughter and on her return to her own house, she was told by the prosecutrix-her daughter that the accused had come into their house during night. They had asked her to open the door, that had not been opened, but the door had been opened by kicks and the prosecutrix had been taken on the roof and subjected to the ill-treatment. They lodged the report with police Post, Malhar. Report is correct and has admitted the contents of the Report No. 9 of the Roznamcha Police Post, Malhar as correct. In cross-examination by the counsel for the accused No. 1, she has revealed that she had returned 3rd day from the house of her other daughter. She had herself gone to Police Post, Malhar for lodging the report. None was with her except her daughter-prosecutrix. When she had returned home that very time, her daughter had revealed to her about the occurrence and they went to lodge the report at 4 P.M and the next day had proceeded to Billawar. She had herself gone to Police Post, Malhar for lodging the report. None was with her except her daughter-prosecutrix. When she had returned home that very time, her daughter had revealed to her about the occurrence and they went to lodge the report at 4 P.M and the next day had proceeded to Billawar. They had started for Billawar at 2 in the night from their house and had reached Billawar at 8 A.M in the morning and gone directly to the Police Station. Thereafter, medical check-up had been done and had returned to their home. Next day thereafter, her statement had been recorded by the police. Police had seized the broken bolt of the door. She had seen bruises on the back of the prosecutrix and the doctor had also seen those bruises. No question has been asked from her by counsel for the accused No. 2. PW3-Farooq Ahmed, brother of the prosecutrix, a student, age 17 years has been found competent witness by the then Presiding Officer and has stated that some three years back during night, he and the prosecutrix-her sister were asleep in their house, the accused Gulzar called to open the door, he did not open the door whereupon the accused forcibly opened the door and came inside, threatened him that in case, he raised an alarm, he will be shot dead. The prosecutrix-his sister was forcibly taken out. He asked that he be permitted to move out, whereupon the accused did not allow him and called the accused No. 2 Nika. What the accused did to his sister, he does not know, but her sister raised hue and cry, but nobody had come on spot. Police came on spot and recorded his statement. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not reveal to any person about the occurrence, as nobody came to their house for 2-3days. His mother returned after 4 days. The Accused-Gulzar was having pistol. When the accused-Gulzar dragged his sister out the home, she had sustained injuries and had bleeding. The blood had got on her clothes and had been there on the floor as well. When his sister had been dragged, she had sustained friction marks by the stones. The bolt of the door had got broke. He had told police that the accused-Gulzar was having a pistol in his hand. The accused had not beaten him. The blood had got on her clothes and had been there on the floor as well. When his sister had been dragged, she had sustained friction marks by the stones. The bolt of the door had got broke. He had told police that the accused-Gulzar was having a pistol in his hand. The accused had not beaten him. PW4-Som Raj has stated that on 24th October, 1996, he had gone to Malhar and went to Police Post, where the trousers of the prosecutrix was seized and he signed the seizure memo, contents whereof have been admitted as correct, same has been marked as EXPW-S/1 and the police placed the ring on Supurdnama of the prosecutrix, which Supurdnama has been admitted as correct and has been marked as EXPW-S/1. In cross-examination by the counsel for accused No. 2, he has stated that the contents of seizure memo had not been read over to him and does not know what are the contents of the seizure memo. He had been asked to sign and had signed. In cross-examination by the counsel for the accused No. 1, he has stated that he is an employee in the PHE and has appeared as witness in other case against the accused in the Court at Billawar. That case and the present case pertained to the same date. That other occurrence had taken place half a kilometer away from the present place of occurrence. On 24th October, 1996, he had gone to Police Post, Malhar, that day the accused-Gulzar was in the Court at Billawar. Police had called him to be a witness in this case as well. He does not know as to since which date, witness-Shamsh is posted in Malhar. His house is at a distance of half a kilometer away from the house of Shamash. They know each other. When he reached Police Post, Malhar, the Incharge had placed the trousers in an envelope and thereafter, sealed it by using the ring and thereafter, all of them went back to their homes. He had been called by the Incharge Police Post. PW5-Shamsh Din, is also a witness to the seizure of trousers produced by the prosexutrix and the seizure has been admitted as correct by this witness marked as EXPW-S and thereafter, the seal (one ring) has been placed on the Supurdnama of the prosecutrix. He had been called by the Incharge Police Post. PW5-Shamsh Din, is also a witness to the seizure of trousers produced by the prosexutrix and the seizure has been admitted as correct by this witness marked as EXPW-S and thereafter, the seal (one ring) has been placed on the Supurdnama of the prosecutrix. The Supurdnama to that effect has been admitted correct by him that has been marked as EXPW-S/1. In cross-examination by the counsel for the accused No. 1, he has stated that his house is at a distance of 4 Kilometer from Police Post, Malhar. Those days, he was posted in Malhar and had gone to collect sugar from the depot. The prosecutrix is not related to him while as accused-Gulzar is his relation. He had reached Police Post at 11 A.M. He had left his home at 9 to attend the duty. The seizure was prepared in the police post in his presence, which had been sealed. What was the specimen, he cannot state. The prosecutrix had not come to Police Post, Malhar. He had been called by the Officer Incharge Police Post, Malhar, as his office is situated near the Police Post. He has admitted that the accused is his relation, but he has no dispute or enmity with the accused. In cross-examination by the counsel for the accused No. 2, he has stated that he had gone to Malhar in the year 1995, but does not remember the date and the month. He is Class-IX employee in Horticulture. He was posted in Malhar area, does not remember the name of the salesman, where he had gone to purchase the sugar. He had been called to the Police Post by the Incharge Police Post. The Incharge Police Post himself prepared the documents. PW6-Mohd. Saleem has stated that on 22nd date of the year 1996, month is not recollected by him. He had seen the accused-Gulzar Ahmed, taking tea at the shop of one-Yash Pal and had left by bus for Billawar. He has seen Gulzar, taking tea at 7 A.M in the morning. Thereafter, he came to know that theft had taken place in the house of Sharif and rape has been committed upon the prosecutrix. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had heard about the theft and rape upon the prosecutrix. He has seen Gulzar, taking tea at 7 A.M in the morning. Thereafter, he came to know that theft had taken place in the house of Sharif and rape has been committed upon the prosecutrix. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had heard about the theft and rape upon the prosecutrix. The day he had seen Gulzar taking tea, that very day the mother of the prosecutrix had told him that the theft had taken place in the house of Sharif. The prosecutrix was putting up in her parental house for the last 4-5 years for having strained relations with her in-laws. The husband of the prosecutrix is Nasar Ali. What is relation between Nasar Ali and Gulzar, he does not know. He knows Gulzar. The husband of prosecutrix was not putting up in the parental house of prosecutrix. PW7-Dr. Asim Sharma has stated about the fact that he as Gynecologist, examined prosecutrix on 24th October, 1996 and issued the Certificate EXPW-M. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not notice any injury on the body of the prosecutrix. PW8-Chain Singh, I.O has stated that on 23rd of October, 1996, the prosecutrix produced a written report in the Police Post, Malhar that he entered in the Roznamcha as Report No. 9, submitted request for registration of the case to the Police Station, Billawar, prepared Site Plan EXPW-CS, seized the trousers produced by the prosecutrix vide Seizure EXPW-S, sealed that with the seal and the seal used was placed on Supurdnama vide document EXPW-S/1. The prosecutrix was medically examined and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. From his investigations, case for offence under Sections 376 and 109 RPC was established against the accused, prepared the Challan and submitted the same to SHO, Billawar. In cross-examination, he has stated that in the report EXPW-S, the name of the accused No. 2 had not been disclosed, but the co-accused had been mentioned. The name of the accused No. 2 also does not figure in the FIR. The accused No. 2 was not known to the prosecutrix prior to occurrence. The occurrence took place during night. There was no electricity in the house of the prosecutrix. No identification parade has been conducted for identification of the accused No. 2. From his investigation, it did not come on record that the accused No. 2 was armed. The accused No. 2 was not known to the prosecutrix prior to occurrence. The occurrence took place during night. There was no electricity in the house of the prosecutrix. No identification parade has been conducted for identification of the accused No. 2. From his investigation, it did not come on record that the accused No. 2 was armed. The accused No. 2 had not entered the house of the prosecutrix. He did not notice any injury on the person of the prosecutrix and had not shown any injury by the prosecutrix. He did not enquire as to why the prosecutrix was not putting up with her husband. This is the evidence of prosecution. 9. The statement of appellant/accused was recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C and denied all incriminating materials, but did not produce any evidence. The court below after final conclusion convicted the accused and sentenced him. 10. Court below has observed that no doubt, Investigating Officer has stated that name of Akhtar Hussain accused was not mentioned in the FIR and no identification parade was conducted during the investigation, but lapse committed by the Investigating officer during investigation cannot be allowed to be encashed as a premium by an accused; why should the prosecutrix and her brother implicate a person with whom they have no enmity or any scores to settle with. The court below further held that presence of accused No.2-Akhtar Hussain/appellant with accused No.1-Gulzar Ahmed at the time of occurrence viz. during night at the place of occurrence cannot be disputed and is established beyond doubt. 11. Law with regard to appreciation of evidence in rape cases or cases against women are concerned, the evidence of victim/prosecutrix carries value. The conviction can be based on solitary statement of victim/prosecutrix, provided it inspires confidence of Court. 12. Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, learned counsel for appellant, has limited his argument so far accused/appellant is concerned and has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record against accused Akhtar Hussain. First and foremost argument is that in written report and FIR, the prosecutrix has neither mentioned the name nor identified the 2nd person (accused/appellant herein) who came in the intervening night of 21/22.10.1996 along with Gulzar Ahmed. 13. Mr. F.A. Natnoo, learned Addl. First and foremost argument is that in written report and FIR, the prosecutrix has neither mentioned the name nor identified the 2nd person (accused/appellant herein) who came in the intervening night of 21/22.10.1996 along with Gulzar Ahmed. 13. Mr. F.A. Natnoo, learned Addl. AG, has supported the impugned judgment stating that the same is based on appreciation of entire evidence on record and prayed that the instant appeal be dismissed out-rightly. 14. I have gone through the written report lodged by victim upon which FIR was lodged; it does not bear the name of appellant, but it has been stated that another person was with accused Gulzar Ahmed. Further allegations against him are that ‘another person did not perform any bad act, but threatened her not to make noise, otherwise she will be killed”. In her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C she has not named accused/appellant. But in her statement before Court she has first time named the another accused as Akhtar Hussain. Similarly PW3-Farooq Ahmed, brother of the prosecutrix, has not named the accused/appellant in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In his statement before Court he has stated that some three years back during night, he and the prosecutrix, her sister, were asleep in their house, the accused Gulzar called to open the door, he did not open the door whereupon the accused forcibly opened the door and came inside, threatened him that in case, he raised an alarm, he will be shot dead. The prosecutrix-his sister was forcibly taken out. He asked that he be permitted to move out, whereupon the accused did not allow him and called the accused No. 2 Nika. 15. So prosecutrix and her brother were not knowing the name of another accused, the appellant herein at the time of occurrence. No identification parade was got conducted by I/O during investigation of this accused. Law is clear that when accused is not known to victim, then identification parade is necessary. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes the identification of proper accused and properties admissible and relevant facts in a court of Law. The identification is always a matter of opinion or belief. Law is clear that when accused is not known to victim, then identification parade is necessary. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes the identification of proper accused and properties admissible and relevant facts in a court of Law. The identification is always a matter of opinion or belief. With regard to criminal offence, identification has two-fold object; firstly to satisfy the investigating authorities, before sending a case for trial to court, that the person arrested was not previously known to the witnesses and is among those who have committed the crime, or the property concerned was subject of such crime. Secondly, to satisfy the Court that the accused was the real offender or the article was concerned with the crime which is being tried. 16. In AIR 1999 SC 3916 in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj And Anr., Apex Court has held as under:- A. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) Section 9–Penal code, 376 (2)(g)–Rape case–identification evidence-Name of another accused who along with named accused alleged to have committed rape not named in FIR-absence of identification parade fatal prosecutrix even denied suggestion that said accused had been working at her place–identity of said accused not established–He cannot be held guilty. Relevant para: This Court in Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P [1970] 2 SCC 128 held that the evidence in order to carry conviction should ordinarily clarify as to how and under what circumstances the complainant or the witness came to pick out the particular accused person and the details of the part which he allegedly played in the crime in question with reasonable particularly. In such cases test identification is considered as safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without such or other corroboration. Though the holding of identification proceedings are not substantive evidence. Yet they are used for corroboration purposes for believing that the person brought before the court was the real person involved in the commission of the crime. Though the holding of identification proceedings are not substantive evidence. Yet they are used for corroboration purposes for believing that the person brought before the court was the real person involved in the commission of the crime. The identification parade even if held, cannot, in all cases, be considered as safe, Sole and trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of the accused could be sustained. It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where accused is not known to the witnesses or the complainant. The holding of identification parade in the instant case would have been irrelevant, had the name of respondent No. 2 been mentioned in the FIR Exhibit P/D. The prosecutrix in her deposition before the Trial Court even denied the suggestion of the respondent No. 2 to the effect that the respondent No. 2 had been working at her place as a Mason. It was, therefore, incorrect for the Trial Court to hold : "So far as the identification of the accused is concerned that is not disputed at all, therefore, at the relevant time they could not have been identified by the prosecutrix" The identity of the respondent No. 2 was, admittedly, not established during the investigation and it is not clear as to how the said respondent was put on trial along with respondent No. 1. We agree with the finding of the High Court that accused Diwan Chand could not be held guilty as no unimpeachable, reliable and satisfactory evidence was produced regarding his involvement in the commission of the crime.” 17. Further one more fact is required to be noted that I/O has categorically stated that the occurrence took place during night; there was no electricity in the house of the prosecutrix, so identification parade of appellant/accused was necessary. There is also no proof as to whether the nick name of present appellant was NIKA as narrated by PW Farooq Ahmed. 18. Law is clear that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Burden to prove prosecution version is wholly upon the prosecution. The Courts while appreciating the evidence in criminal cases have to see that the degree of proof is maximum than that of civil case. The evidence produced by prosecution should be legally admissible. 18. Law is clear that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Burden to prove prosecution version is wholly upon the prosecution. The Courts while appreciating the evidence in criminal cases have to see that the degree of proof is maximum than that of civil case. The evidence produced by prosecution should be legally admissible. If there come the slightest doubts regarding the involvement of accused then court should not go on convicting the accused. 19. In arriving at conclusion about guilt of accused charged with heinous crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by yardsticks of probabilities. Every case has its own facts. The law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on basis of moral conviction or suspicion. The burden of proof never shift, it is always on prosecution. 20. In view of the above discussion, I am of considered opinion that prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant. The conviction and the sentence passed by the Court below are set aside. Appellant is discharged from bail bond. File of Court below be sent back. I have confined my judgment in re-appreciation of evidence only with regard to the present accused. Trial Court is directed to remind the concerned police with regard to the execution of the warrant under section 512 Cr.P.C. against main accused/Gulzar Ahmed expeditiously. 21. Appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.