JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present criminal appeal has been maintained by the appellant-accused-convict (hereinafter to be called as "the accused"), against the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence, dated 30.09.2016/24.10.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, District Una, H.P. 2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 27.03.2015, the prosecutrix gave an information to the police that her son has attempted to commit rape upon her. On the basis of this information, ASI Ram Kumar, alongwith Constable Ranjiv Kumar, No. 400 and HHG Pawan Kumar, No. 12/1-43 went to the place Bagga Barota. At the spot, the prosecutrix gave a written application, dislosing that on 26.03.2015 around 10:00 p.m., the accused came in intoxicated condition and he was abusing in the courtyard. He remained abusing till midnight, thereafter, he entered her room and from 12:00 to 2:00 a.m., he made her nude and did obscene acts. He was having an axe with him and he threatened her by saying that he will kill her if she tried to run. Ultimately, the prosecutrix pretended to go to the bath room and also to drink water and then she managed to put her salwar and to go out. Thereafter, she cried for help and asked her daughter Shoba to come, upon which, her daughter and son-in-law came. The prosecutrix also called three ladies from the village. Police was also called over telephone and registered the FIR against the accused. During the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The police took into possession an affidavit and newspaper cutting in which the publication of disowning of the accused from property was made by the prosecutrix. Photographs of the room were also clicked. The prosecutrix was medically examined. However, no injury was found on her person. The accused was also got medically examined and he was found to have consumed liquor, but not intoxicated. After completion of investigation challan was presented before the learned trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in which he denied the case of the prosecution. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. After completion of investigation challan was presented before the learned trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in which he denied the case of the prosecution. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court, vide judgment/order dated 30.09.2016/24.10.2016, convicted and sentenced the accused as follows: "(1) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (2) to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. (3) to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months." All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence the present appeal. 5. Mr. V.S. Rathour, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant-convict has argued that the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence, especially the statement of the prosecutrix, hence the conviction of the appellant is required to be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Bhatti, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that present is a very heinous crime which brings shame to the society and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant needs to be upheld. In rebuttal, learned legal aid counsel has argued that if the act is committed by the appellant, it is shameful, but the statements of the witnesses itself show that it is a concocted story to get the appellant involved in a false case and the learned trial Court just on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix, which is unreliable, convicted the appellant and taking into consideration the entire evidence, the appellant-convict is required to be acquitted. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has gone through the record carefully and in detail. 7. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has gone through the record carefully and in detail. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined the prosecutrix as PW-1, who deposed that accused is her real son and has been disinherited from the house, as he was not under her control. She further deposed that on 26.03.2015, the accused came to the house at 10:00 pm., under the influence of liquor and started hurling abuses, which he kept on doing till 12:00 (midnight). Thereafter, the accused forcibly entered into her room, held her by the arm and tried to force her to take off the clothes, he was also having an axe with him. As per the prosecutrix, she had to take off her clothes, fearing danger to her life at the hands of the accused, who was in severely intoxicated condition. The accused also undressed himself and tried to commit rape upon her. He made her lie forcibly, sometimes on the bed and at other times on the floor, and made an attempt to forcibly commit intercourse. He tried to touch her private parts. At about 2:00 a.m., the prosecutrix requested the accused that she may be allowed to urinate since she is a sugar patient and may be allowed to drink water, as her throat had dried. On this excuse, and taking advantage of the fact that the accused was in severely drunken condition, the prosecutrix managed to put on her clothes and after drinking water in the kitchen, she ran out of her room. She cried for help in loud voice and on hearing her cries, her daughter and son-in-law came to the spot and rescued her from the accused. After 15-20 minutes, she called Maya Devi, Sarla Devi and Raksha Devi over telephone and narrated them whole incident. Thereafter, she called the police, the police came to the spot and she submitted application, Ext. PW-1/C to them. She indicated to the police the place in her room where the accused had tried to commit rape upon her. The police clicked photographs of the spot and prepared spot map. She also handed over to the police the axe which was used by the accused to threaten her. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that there are three rooms in her house. The police clicked photographs of the spot and prepared spot map. She also handed over to the police the axe which was used by the accused to threaten her. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that there are three rooms in her house. She has four shops, which are adjacent to the backyard of her house. The said shops were constructed by her from the money she got from the sale of land belonging to her parents. She admitted that the house in which her daughter lives alongwith her husband, also belongs to her. Her son-in-law Joginder Singh lives in village Dangra, District Kangra. He keeps on visiting his wife, i.e. her daughter. She further deposed that she has two daughters and one son. She admitted that she got divorced from her husband probably in the year 1992, after a long drawn litigation. She also admitted that a case under ND & PS Act was registered against her, in which she was convicted. However, in appeal she was acquitted by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. She admitted that Vinay Kumar was co-accused in that case. She denied that Vinay Kumar used to reside with her in her house. She deposed that she was not in a position to struggle against or resist the accused, as he was constantly threatening her with the axe. As per this witness, when the accused was hurling abuses between 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 (midnight), nobody came to the spot. She deposed that she called Maya Devi and Raksha Devi from her personal mobile phone. Self stated that her phone was lying with her daughter. She further deposed that before her daughter and son-in-law could come to catch the accused, he ran away from the spot. The accused was chased and nabbed by her son-in-law. She denied that her daughter lives in her house. She deposed that she has no personal mobile phone and the phone which she had called Maya Devi was the phone of her daughter. 8. Pw-4, Shobha Rani, daughter of the prosecutrix, has deposed that for the last 5-6 years, she alongwith her family is living in village Bagga Barota and the house of her mother is at a distance of 100 meters from her house. On 27.03.2015, at 2:15 a.m., when she was sleeping in her house, she heard the cries of her mother. Pw-4, Shobha Rani, daughter of the prosecutrix, has deposed that for the last 5-6 years, she alongwith her family is living in village Bagga Barota and the house of her mother is at a distance of 100 meters from her house. On 27.03.2015, at 2:15 a.m., when she was sleeping in her house, she heard the cries of her mother. She and her husband came out from their house and saw that the accused was running behind her mother. As per this witness, the accused was hurling abuses to her mother from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 (midnight), which were also heard by her and her husband. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that her mother owns mobile phone. She denied that on the said date, the mobile phone was with her mother. Self stated that she had put the mobile in her house for charging. Her mother made phone calls to Maya Devi, Sarla Devi and Raksha Devi at about 3:00 a.m. and they have reached at the spot at about 4:00 a.m. She deposed that she and her husband did not try to intervene when the accused was hurling abuses to her mother, since it was routine of the accused to hurl abuses in a drunken position. 9. Pw-3, Joginder Singh, son-in-law of the prosecutrix, has deposed that on 27.03.2015, at about 2-2:30 a.m., when he was sleeping in his house, he heard his mother-in-law loudly crying out the name of her daughter. When he alongwith his wife came out of the house he saw that the accused was chasing his mother-in-law and on seeing them, he fled away from the spot. Thereafter, his mother-in-law called Maya Devi, Sarla Devi and Raksha Devi to the spot. The police was also informed. This witness, in his cross- examination, denied that in the past he had a fight with the accused qua which, a complaint was made with the police. 10. Pw-2, Maya Devi and PW-6, Sarla Devi have reached the spot after receiving telephonic calls from the prosecutrix and testified that the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to them. 11. Pw-5, Santosh Kumar, former Pradhan of Village Nehrian, has deposed that on 27.03.2015, at about 3:00 a.m., he received a telephonic call from the prosecutrix, asking him to come to her house. When he reached there, the prosecutrix narrated him the entire incident. 11. Pw-5, Santosh Kumar, former Pradhan of Village Nehrian, has deposed that on 27.03.2015, at about 3:00 a.m., he received a telephonic call from the prosecutrix, asking him to come to her house. When he reached there, the prosecutrix narrated him the entire incident. The police was called to the spot by the prosecutrix and the police recorded the statements of the persons present there. The prosecutrix handed over an axe to the police in his presence as well as in the presence of PW-10. Which was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo, Ext. PW-1/G and bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, denied that Shobha Devi live alongwith her mother in the same house. Self stated that her house is at a distance of about 100 meters. 12. Pw-10, Naresh Chand Sharma, was also called by the prosecutrix to her house and this witness, has also deposed about what has been disclosed to him by the prosecutrix. As per this witness, the axe was taken into possession by the police vide memo, Ext. PW-1/G, in his presence, as well as in the presence of PW-5. 13. Pw-9, Dr. Pankaj Prasher, Civil Hospital-Amb, District Una, H.P. has conducted the medical examination of the accused and observed as under: "On examination, the patient was conscious, cooperative and well oriented to time, person and place. Injury No. 1: Lacerated wound over left side of forehead. Size 1 X 1 cm. Skin Deep. There was no active bleeding. There was no evidence of fracture underlying bone. Injury No. 2: Tenderness over anterior chest wall. Advised X-ray of chest. Injury No. 3: Tenderness over right hand. Movement of right hand were painful. He advised X-ray of right hand. He opined that the accused had consumed alcohol, but he was not under the influence of alcohol. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that above mentioned injuries are possible in a scuffle. 14. Pw-11, Dr. Sudhi Kaushal, Regional Hospital, Una, has deposed that on 27.03.2015, at 1:30 p.m., the police brought the prosecutrix for medical examination at Regional Hospital, Una, vide application, Ext. PW-11/A, as no female officer was available at CHC Amb. On examination, the patient was conscious, cooperative and all vitals were stable. On external examination, no injury marks seen on thigh, breast and neck. She issued MLC, Ext. PW-1/H. 15. PW-11/A, as no female officer was available at CHC Amb. On examination, the patient was conscious, cooperative and all vitals were stable. On external examination, no injury marks seen on thigh, breast and neck. She issued MLC, Ext. PW-1/H. 15. Pw-7, Constable Harjinder Pal, has deposed that on 27.03.2015, at 5:55 a.m., on telephonic information given by the prosecutrix, he entered entry No. 6 in computer Rojnamcha. PW-8, HC, Vipan Kumar, MHC, Police Station Amb, has deposed that on 27.03.2015, he was looking after the work of SHO Police Station Amb and received an application, Ext. PW-1/C, through Constable Ranjeev Kumar, upon which, FIR, Ext. PW-8/A was registered and endorsement on the application was made. 16. Pw-12, Inspector Om Prakash, prepared the challan. PW-13, ASI Ram Kumar, Investigating Officer, P.S. Bangana, District Una, has deposed that on 27.03.2015, at 5:55 a.m., the prosecutrix gave telephonic information that her son has tried to rape her. On this information, he alongwith Constable Ranjeev Kumar and HHG Pawan Kumar went to the spot. After inspecting the spot, spot map, Ext. PW-13/A was prepared and photographs of the spot were clicked. The prosecutrix produced an axe in presence of witnesses Naresh Kumar and Santosh Kumar, which was stated to be used by the accused for threatening when he attempted to commit rape. The same was taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-1/G. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her MLC, Ext. PW-1/H was obtained. After arresting the accused, he was also medically examined and his MLC, Ext. PW9/B was obtained. The affidavit, Ext. PW-1/A and cutting of newspaper, Ext. PW-1/B to disown the accused were also taken into possession. 17. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is to be seen, though she has stated that under the threat that she will be killed, she was made naked by her son/accused and he tried to commit sexual assault on her, but it has also come in prosecution evidence that her daughter is also residing in the same house. However, as per the daughter she is residing in the house at some distance. It has also come in the statement of the daughter of the prosecutrix that she and her husband were hearing the abuses given by the accused to her mother for two hours. However, as per the daughter she is residing in the house at some distance. It has also come in the statement of the daughter of the prosecutrix that she and her husband were hearing the abuses given by the accused to her mother for two hours. But, why they had not intervened and why they had come only after they were called by the prosecutrix is also not clear. It is also in the prosecution evidence that the accused has been disinherited by the prosecutrix, though he was living with the prosecutrix. It has further come in the prosecution evidence that co-accused in the narcotics case with the prosecutrix was also living with the prosecutrix, but at the time of said incidence he was behind the bars. No witness has stated what relation the co-accused had with the prosecutrix. In these circumstances, this Court has to consider the statements of the other witnesses, as the daughter of the prosecutrix and her son-in-law are definitely interested in getting the accused convicted, because in case of his disinheritance these two persons will get the benefit. 18. The failure of these two witnesses to say why they had not gone when they were hearing that accused is abusing his mother is something which creates doubt in the prosecution story. Now, coming to the statement of PW-5, Sarla Devi, who was also present on the spot has not supported the prosecution case on material aspects and as far as other witnesses are concerned, they are hear say witnesses. At the same point of time, PW-11, who examined the prosecutrix found no injury on her person. In these circumstances, the story of the prosecutrix that she was made to lie on the floor by the accused is of more significance. Had it been so and her statement is believable, some injury in some form is bound to come. So, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix becomes unreliable and statements of her daughter and son-in-law are also unreliable, as they are interested witnesses and only beneficiaries if the accused remains behind the bars. The statement of PW-5, Sarla Devi and other witnesses make the prosecution case doubtful and suspicious and it is settled law that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. 19. The statement of PW-5, Sarla Devi and other witnesses make the prosecution case doubtful and suspicious and it is settled law that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. 19. So, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-convict is allowed and he is acquitted of the commission of offence punishable under Sections 376/511, 504 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, appellant-convict, who is presently serving out the sentence, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case Release warrants be prepared accordingly. The appeal, so also pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.