JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Both the afore appeals, stands directed, respectively by the complainant, and, by the State, against, the pronouncement made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, H.P., upon, Sessions Case No.3- VII/2013, whereunder, the accused/respondent herein, hence stood acquitted, of, the charged offences. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 21.7.2012, application Ex.PW1/A had been received by post in Police Station, Gagret from the Superintendent of Police, Una, and, it has been alleged in the application that the prosecutrix was working in MNERGA at village Tatehra and during work, Yash Pal had introduced her to the accused through telephone and the accused had assured her to provide a good job. On 13.7.102, the accused took her to Baddi on the pretext of providing job to her. At Baddi, the accused took her to his room and committed rape with her and confined her in the room and told that she would not go anywhere.; After 4-5 days, she managed to get mobile of the accused and accordingly had talk with Pardhan of village, Tatehra and she made inquiry about the welfare of her children. Pradhan told her that her children are quite well but made inquiries about her. Pradhan requested the prosecutrix to come back to her house. Her husband had moved application in the Police Station, Gagret about her disappearance and all are in tension. Pradhan accordingly informed parents of the prosecutrix that their daughter is alive. The parents of the prosecutrix accordingly called her but the accused did not allow her to attend the call. He accused used to say that he has seen a boy for her and will son marry her with him. The accused had gone to perform his duty and she took advantage of his absence and fled from his room. On 20.7.2012, she went straight way to Police Station, Gagret, and, accused also called her repeatedly and threatened that in case she made any complaint to the police, he would kill her, her husband, children and brother. Due to pressure of the accused, she had not made any statement against the accused and she had disclosed that she had gone with the accused at her own. Due to pressure of the accused, she had not made any statement against the accused and she had disclosed that she had gone with the accused at her own. Husband of the complainant had also lodged complaint about her disappearance vide rapat Ex.PW2/A and as per rapat she had left the house on 13.7.2012 at around 5 a.m. The prosecutrix on 20.7.2012 in the presence of her parents, husband and other people had made statement that she had gone with the accused at her own and had got job in Vaishnavi factory on 13.7.2012 and was residing near the factory by taking room on rent. ASI Gian Chand along with the prosecutrix and other police officials went to Baddi and rapat Ex.PW3/B had been entered in P.S., Gagret. ASI Gian Chand after conducting inquiries came back on 23.7.2012 from Barotiwala and rapat to this effect Ex.PW3/C had been entered and on findings a prima facie case under Sections 366, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, FIR Ex.PW1/C had been registered against the accused. Thereafter the police completed all the formalities relating to the investigations. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/respondent herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, his committing offences, punishable under Sections 366, 376, and, under Section 506, of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal, in, favour of the accused/ respondents herein. 6. The State, as well as, the complainant/prosecutrix, stand, aggrieved, by the findings of acquittal, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The Additional Advocate General, as well as, the counsel appearing for the complainant, both concertedly and vigorously contend, qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. The Additional Advocate General, as well as, the counsel appearing for the complainant, both concertedly and vigorously contend, qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, they contend qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The prosecutrix, in support of her complaint, addressed, to the Superintendent of Police Concerned, and, embodied, in Ex.PW1/B, and, in pursuance whereto, the apposite FIR, vis-a-vis, the relevant occurrence, as borne in Ex.PW1/C, hence stood lodged, stepped into the witnesses box as PW-1, and, has rendered a testification bearing tandem therewith. Apart therefrom, she, has during the course of her examination-in-chief, proven the contents, encapsulated in Ex.PW1/F, (a) exhibit whereof comprises her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., hence by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. The testification, vis-a-vis, the relevant inculpatory occurrence, rendered by the prosecutrix, is, prima facie, supported by Ex.PW14/C, exhibit whereof comprises, the, report of the FSL concerned, rendered, upon the material, sent therebefore, for rendition(s), of opinion, and, relevant portion, of, the opinion borne in Ex.PW14/C, stands extracted hereinafter:- "1. Human semen was detected on exhibit-1a (Salwar, Suman Kumari) and exhibit 1c (dupatta, Suman Kumari). Blood was not detected on the exhibits. 2. Blood and semen was not detected on exhibit-1b (shirt, Suman Kumari), exhibit 1d (bra, Suman Kumari, Exhibit 1e ( underwear, Suman Kumari), exhibit 2a (vaginal slides, Suman Kumari), exhibit 2b (vaginal swab, Suman Kumari), exhibit 2c (public hair, Suman Kumari), exhibit 3a (pubic hair, Swaran Singh), exhibit 3c ( underwear, Swaran Singh), exhibit-5 bed sheet) and exhibit-6 (bed sheet). 3. Blood and semen was not detected on exhibit-1b (shirt, Suman Kumari), exhibit 1d (bra, Suman Kumari, Exhibit 1e ( underwear, Suman Kumari), exhibit 2a (vaginal slides, Suman Kumari), exhibit 2b (vaginal swab, Suman Kumari), exhibit 2c (public hair, Suman Kumari), exhibit 3a (pubic hair, Swaran Singh), exhibit 3c ( underwear, Swaran Singh), exhibit-5 bed sheet) and exhibit-6 (bed sheet). 3. Human blood was detected on exhibit 3B (blood sample, Swaran Singh)" Apart therefrom, the MLC, appertaining to the prosecutrix, and, as borne in EX.PW23/A, making disclosures therein qua the prosecutrix, rather regularly indulging in sexual intercourses, stands also depended, upon, by the prosecution, for, nailing, the charge against the accused. 10. Initially, the echoings borne in Ex.PW23/B, and, the ones, borne in the report of the FSL, embodied, in Ex.PW14/C, (a) though may not constrain, any formidable conclusion from this Court, that, thereupon, the prosecution hence fully, and, efficaciously discharging, the burden of proving the charge, against the accused, (b) apparently, when the afore extracted result/opinion, rendered, upon, the relevant inculpatory items, sent to the FSL concerned, for their examination, (c) do not make any candid, and, forthright incriminatory conclusion(s) against the accused, (d) inasmuch as, human semen, and, human blood detected, upon, various exhibits rather bearing compatibility(ies) or matching(s), with the blood, and, semen of the accused. Furthermore, with the prosecutrix being a married lady, and, also it being opined in Ex.PW23/A qua hers regularly indulging, in sexual intercourses, would not, also constrain any conclusion from this Court, qua, in the alleged sexual encounters, inter se, both the accused, and, the prosecutrix hence, the accused holding any incriminatory role, more so, also when, effects, if, any, of the afore Ex.PW23/A, and, of, Ex.PW14/C, are, diminished by, the hereafter discussion. 11. Be that as it may, as aforestated, the prosecutrix is a married lady, and, obviously, had acquired, the relevant capacity, to mete consent to the accused. However, it has to be fathomed, from, the evidence, existing on record, (a) whether the consent, as, purportedly purveyed to the accused, by the prosecutrix, being under duress or compulsion or it being a free volitional consent. However, it has to be fathomed, from, the evidence, existing on record, (a) whether the consent, as, purportedly purveyed to the accused, by the prosecutrix, being under duress or compulsion or it being a free volitional consent. Obviously, upon, surging forth, of, evidence, and, it making a graphic depiction, qua the consent, as meted by the prosecutrix to the accused, being volitional, (b) thereupon, the verdict of acquittal would not be interfered with, (c) whereas, upon, surging forth, of evidence, with, invincible personification(s) therein, vis-a-vis, the consent, if any, purveyed, by the prosecutrix, to the accused, being under duress or compulsion exerted upon her, thereupon, this Court would proceed to interfere with the verdict of acquittal, pronounced by the learned trial Court. 12. Even though, as aforestated,t he prosecutrix, has rendered in her examination-in-chief, a deposition bearing tandem, with her previous statements recorded in writing, and, also the husband of the prosecutrix while stepping, into the witness box, and, also the landlord, of, the premises concerned, whereat both the prosecutrix and the accused, hence resided together, all supported the prosecution case, (a) yet primarily, the credibility or otherwise of the testification, rendered by the prosecutrix alone rather comprises, the, solitary parameter, (b) wherefrom, this Court would be constrained, to, upon its, making an incisive analysis thereof, draw conclusions, qua whether it embodying therewithin, hence, her, confidence inspiring truthful version, qua the inculpatory incident, or contrarily whether it lacking, in, creditworthiness, (c) latter inference, whereof would stand sparked by the factum of hers, evidently improving or embellishing, upon, her previous statement(s) recorded, in writing, (d) and, also importantly, upon, fulcrum of the apt jurisprudential principle, appertaining, to, a charge under Section 376 of the IPC, qua hers joining the company, of, the accused being purely volitional, and, also vis-a-vis, hers engaging in sexual encounters with the accused, rather emanating from hers meteing the fullest volitional consent, to him. Necessarily, hence this Court is required, to delve into, the testimony of the prosecutrix, comprised in her examination-in-chief, and, in her cross-examination. Necessarily, hence this Court is required, to delve into, the testimony of the prosecutrix, comprised in her examination-in-chief, and, in her cross-examination. As aforestated, a reading of the deposition of the prosecutrix, as encapsulated in her examination-in-chief, does make clear voicings, that she, had joined the company of the accused, on 13.7.2012, (e) and, thereonwards, upto 20.7.2012, she had remained, in his company, and, also she makes graphic disclosure therein, (f) that throughout the afore duration of her stay, in the company of the accused, the later under the pretext of providing, to her a remunerative employment, had hence repeatedly subjected her to sexual encounters. She has also made bespeaking therein, that the meteing of threats, to her, by the accused, rather precluding, and, deterring her, to promptly report the matter to the police or to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, and, obviously, hence, she strived, to purvey an explication for the purported delay, as has occurred, in the reporting, of, the alleged incident to the police. The test, for determining, the veracity, of the afore testification, comprised in her examination-in-chief, is, qua the afore testification borne therein, being read in conjunction, with her further testification, borne in her cross-examination. The afore endeavour, is, significant, as, therefrom it would be garnerable, vis-a-vis, defence counsel hence succeeding in his striving, to negate the charge, against the accused, on, fulcrum of the alleged sexual encounters, which were entered into inter se the accused, and, the prosecutrix, being hence with, the fullest volitional purported consent of the latter, to the accused, and, hence the charge foundering. 13. A reading of the testification, of the prosecutrix, borne in her cross-examination, underscores, rather the factum, that, in the morning of 13.7.2012, upon, the accused arriving near her house, rather thereat, hers being possessed with her mobile, (a) thereupon, the afore factum, assumes immense signification, as, thereupon, the prosecutrix, rather stood facilitated, to, with user of mobile, hence, make communications, to, her relatives, family members or to to the Pradhan, of the Gram Panchayat concerned, or even to the police authorities concerned, (b) emphasisingly, upon hers being beset with grave, and, critical incriminatory overtures, of the accused. However, before driving any inference therefrom, it is also important to allude, to the further testification, embodied in her cross-examination, wherein she echoes, qua, it consuming 1-1/2 hours, for, arriving at the old bus stand, whereupto, she deposes that both trudged. However, the factum of the afore echoing, in her cross-examination, (c) that both consumed one and half hour, to, on foot, hence arrive at the bus stand, and, when, in the afore duration, they obviously traversed, through, heavily inhabited homesteads, and, also upon, theirs reaching at the bus stand, whereat obviously there was hence a heavy rush of passengers, for, rather alighting or boarding the buses available thereat, when stand entwined, with, rather throughout, the, prosecutrix remaining reticent, and, also hers omitting to raise hue(s), and, cry(ies), hence, for inviting the attention, of any samaritan, for, dissuading the accused, from forcibly accosting her, (d) rather begets an inference qua hers volitionally taking to company of the accused. Further thereonwards, she has, also in her cross-examination, made, disclosures qua the accused, tearing the clothes worn by her, during, the spell of hers, being forcibly subjected to sexual intercourses, and, thereafter theirs, being put on fire, by the accused. However, the afore statement stands belied, simply, for the reasons, that she has not enabled, the investigating officer concerned, to collect her burnt clothes, nor the Investigating Officer has enabled the effectuation, of, their recoveries, at the instance, of, the accused, (e) and, the effect of the afore echoing hence being belied, is aggravated, by the factum qua the afore comprising, a, gross embellishment, and, improvement, vis-a-vis, her previous statement recorded in writing. Further thereonwards, she, in her crossexamination, makes, a deposition, qua on the day subsequent, to the day, of, hers residing in the quarter(s) of the accused, the landlord visiting her, yet she has been unable to mete any explanation, for her omission to, narrate, to him, the relevant incriminatory incident. The prosecutrix in her testification, comprised in her cross-examination, makes articulations, qua the accused proceeding, to duty on 14.7.2012, and, she has also echoed therein qua hers, on the afore day, rather remaining in the room, of the accused. The prosecutrix in her testification, comprised in her cross-examination, makes articulations, qua the accused proceeding, to duty on 14.7.2012, and, she has also echoed therein qua hers, on the afore day, rather remaining in the room, of the accused. When the afore echoing is construed in conjunction, with her prior thereto, rendering echoings qua hers, joining the company of the accused, and, her thereat carryingher mobile, (f) thereupon, her omission(s) to, on 14.7.2012, hence leave the room of the accused, especially when it was not locked, from, outside, and also her omission to make communication(s), from, her mobile, vis-a-vis, the purported incriminatory incident, to the police or her relatives or to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, (g) begetting a conclusion, that, she had consensually joined the company of the accused, and, also hence meted the fullest volitional consent to the accused, in his perpetrating sexual intercourses upon her, during her prolonged stay with him, since 13.7.2012 upto 20.07.2012. Preeminently, the afore inferences also nullifies and, negates the effect, if any, of her explanation, vis-a-vis, the delay as has occurred in hers, reporting the relevant incriminatory incident, to the authorities concerned, harboured upon the accused, meteing threats, and, intimidating her. 14. Be that as it may, even if, assumingly, all the afore purported consensual sexual encounters, which were entered into inter se the accused, and, the prosecutrix, in sequel, of, consent, if any, meted by the latter, to the former, under the promise, of, remunerative employment being provided to her, (a)yet the effect thereof, is wholly benumbed, by the factum, of, her testifying qua hers working, in a factory at Barotiwala, and, when she obviously was already in employment, (b) thereupon, obviously, she held no opportunity to aspire for any employment, nor hence there was any opportunity to the accused, to, on pretext of his providing a remunerative employment, to hence, secure her purported tainted or stained consent, for rather, his subjecting, her, to alleged sexual encounters. 15. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial court, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 16. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeals, and, both the appeals are dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.