JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Judge of Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai and setaside the judgment passed by the lower court in S.C.No.318 of 2011 dated 04.12.2012 and acquit the appellant from the said charges.) 1. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai by judgment dated 04.12.2012 passed in S.C.No.318 of 2011 has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under section 366-A I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and under section 376 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and the sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. Challenging the same, the Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused. 2. Briefly stated, according to the respondent police, the accused on 17.06.2010 at about 10 hours, on the false promise that he would marry the victim girl aged about 13 years kidnapped and took her to Mahabalipuram and during their stay at Mahabalipuram, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim girl and thus had committed the offences levelled against him. The criminal action had been set in motion in the matter based on the complaint given by the victim’s mother Ashapriya [P.W.6] and the complaint lodged by her has been marked as Ex.P.6. The complaint is dated 17.06.2010. The criminal action had been set in motion in the matter based on the complaint given by the victim’s mother Ashapriya [P.W.6] and the complaint lodged by her has been marked as Ex.P.6. The complaint is dated 17.06.2010. Following the same, the Inspector of Police examined as P.W.13 took up the case for investigation and subsequently as the complainant had produced the victim girl in the police station, it is found that the statement of the victim girl had been recorded and based on the same, the case which had been originally registered as ‘girl missing’ had been altered to section 363-A and 376 I.P.C and the alteration report has been marked as Ex.P.18 and thereafter arrested the accused on 21.06.2010 and the accused had tendered voluntary confession which had been recorded in the presence of independent witnesses and the clothes worn by the victim girl and the accused had been recovered based on the same and further it is putforth that the jewel mortgaged by the accused had been recovered from Pawn Broker Shop under the Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.21 and the accused had been remanded to custody and thereafter subjected the victim girl for medical examination as well as subjected the accused to medical examination for ascertaining his potency and after obtaining the same and recording the statements of other witnesses and after examining the medical officers and recording their statements, concluded the investigation and lodged the final report against the accused under sections 366-A and 376 IPC. The trial court based on the materials available on record, prima facie on being satisfied that the accused has committed offences punishable under section 366-A and 376 IPC, formulated the said charges against him and the accused had denied the same. 3. To sustain the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined. Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. M.Os.1 to 7 were also marked. 4. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C qua the incriminating evidence tendered against him by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same. 5. On a perusal of the materials placed on record as above pointed out, the trial court was pleased to convict and sentence the accused as aforestated. Impugning the same, the Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 6. 5. On a perusal of the materials placed on record as above pointed out, the trial court was pleased to convict and sentence the accused as aforestated. Impugning the same, the Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 6. The case involved in the matter proceeds on the footing that the victim girl is a minor aged about 13 years on the date of the occurrence, particularly, according to the prosecution case, the accused enticed and lured the victim girl aged about 13 years that he would marry her and on that promise, kidnapped her on 17.06.2010 at about 10 hours and took her to Mahabalipuram and during their stay at Mahabalipuram, according to the prosecution, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim girl and thereby committed the offences putforth against him. In the light of the abovesaid factors, to sustain the said case projected by the prosecution, at the foremost, the prosecution should establish that the victim girl was a minor on the date of occurrence. In this connection, the prosecution seems to be mainly relying upon the birth certificate of the victim girl dated 30.05.1997 marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is found to be a Xerox copy. Ex.P1 is marked through the victim girl (P.W.1) and at the time of marking the same, the counsel for the accused objected to the marking of the same on the footing that the it is only a xerox copy. Now according to the prosecution, the victim girl has deposed that she was born on 21.05.1997 and she studied in the school till VIII standard and discontinued her studies and thereafter studied the X standard at tutorial college. Therefore when as per the version of the victim girl P.W.1 she has undergone schooling, definitely at the time of her admission in the school, her parents would have produced her birth certificate for admitting her in the school and therefore to evidence her date of birth, the records would be available in the school. However, the prosecution has not endeavored to produce the school certificate to point out the real date of birth of the victim girl. They have chosen only to rely upon Ex.P.1 age certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai in favour of victim girl. However, the prosecution has not endeavored to produce the school certificate to point out the real date of birth of the victim girl. They have chosen only to rely upon Ex.P.1 age certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai in favour of victim girl. As above pointed out, Ex.P.1 is only the xerox copy and when the same is being challenged by the accused, in such view of the matter, when according to the prosecution, Ex.P1 had been handed over by the victim girl P.W.1 and the same is only the xerox copy, particularly, when the same is being challenged by the accused, in such view of the matter, as rightly contended by the accused counsel, the prosecution should have endeavored to ascertain the truth and validity of Ex.P1 by examining the official of the Chennai Corporation who had issued the said birth certificate. However, the I.O examined as P.W13 has admitted that he has not verified the authenticity of Ex.P1 by examining the official of the Madras Corporation who had issued the same and further to the I.O, the suggestion has been put that the victim girl is not aged about 13 years as alleged by the prosecution. No doubt, the I.O has denied the same. 7. In this matter, as above pointed out, during the course of investigation, the victim girl was subjected to medical examination by the medical officer namely Tmt.Seetha Lakshmi, who has been examined as P.W.10. P.W.10 has deposed that on taking steps to ascertain the age of the victim girl by radiological test, she came to know that the victim girl was aged between 16 to 18 years and the age certificate issued by the Forensic Medicine Department has been marked as Ex.P9 which shows that the victim girl is aged above 16 years and less than 18 years. Therefore, when as per Ex.P9, the victim girl is found to be aged above 16-18 years and further when as per the medical officer examined as P.W.10, the victim girl’s appearance shows that she is aged about 16 to 18 years and in such view of the matter, when the prosecution has projected a case, as if the victim girl is a minor aged only about 13 years and when the same is seriously challenged by the accused, in such view of the matter, with reference to the age of the victim girl as being 13 years, the prosecution only relies upon the xerox copy of the birth certificate marked as Ex.P.1 and when the genuineness of the same is being contested by the accused, in such view of the matter, particularly in the face of her age certificate given by the Forensic Medicine Department that she is aged about 16 to 18 years, in such view of the matter, as rightly contended by the accused counsel no safe reliance could be assigned to Ex.P1 to conclude that the victim girl was only aged about 13 years on the date of the occurrence. 8. In the light of the above discussions, based on Ex.P1 alone, when the truth and validity of the same is not fortified by the prosecution by acceptable and reliable evidence and particularly when the same is being challenged in toto by the accused counsel. I hold that it would not be safe to conclude that the victim girl was aged about 13 years as putforth by the prosecution and therefore it has to be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the victim girl is a minor on the date of the occurrence as putforth by them. 9. According to the prosecution, the victim girl was kidnapped by the accused on the false promise of marrying her and took her to Mahabalipuram and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and thereby committed the offences levelled against him. According to the accused, he has not committed the offences levelled against him. To sustain the prosecution case, the victim girl has been examined as P.W.1. 10. According to the accused, he has not committed the offences levelled against him. To sustain the prosecution case, the victim girl has been examined as P.W.1. 10. P.W.1 during the course of her chief examination has stated that she had acquaintance with the accused and they were having conversation and accordingly it is found that the victim girl had acquaintance with the accused much prior to the occurrence. Accordingly, it is seen that the they were conversing with each other as friends. During the course of cross examination, the victim girl P.W.1 has admitted that she has acquaintance with the accused two months prior to the occurrence and used to send SMS messages to him and used to send only friendly messages and further admitted that she has many friends and also would state that she did not love the accused and according to the victim girl she was in love with one Pradeep and she does not know whether the said Pradeep loves her. At this juncture, it has to be mentioned that the accused is named Pradeep Kumar. During her further examination, the victim girl was confronted with two letters said to have been written by her marked as Exs.D3 and D4 and the victim girl has admitted that Exs.D3 and D4 letters had been written by her and the same contains her signature and writings. Further she was also asked about two photographs marked as Exs.D1 and D2 and the victim girl has admitted that she is available in the said photos and the person posing along with her is her aunt’s son. According to the victim girl, the person posing with her as found in Exs.D1 and D2 is named Mathesh and not Prabhakar. 11. On a reading of Exs.D3 and D4, it is found that the victim girl had written the abovesaid love letters to the accused and on a reading of the contents of the same, it is found that the victim girl was deep in love with the accused and even called him as her husband in the abovesaid letters. 11. On a reading of Exs.D3 and D4, it is found that the victim girl had written the abovesaid love letters to the accused and on a reading of the contents of the same, it is found that the victim girl was deep in love with the accused and even called him as her husband in the abovesaid letters. Considering the abovesaid factors in toto, it is found that when much prior to the occurrence, the victim girl and the accused had been having acquaintance with each other and conversing often and also been exchanging SMS messages over cellphone and particularly considering Exs.D3 and D4 letters, when the same are admitted to have been written by the victim girl to the accused and when from the contents of Exs.D3 and D4 letters, it is found that they are love letters written by the victim girl to the accused, in such view of the matter, it is found that as contended by the accused counsel, the victim girl is not a stranger to the accused and on the other hand they were known to each other and also found engaged in love with each other. Accordingly, the suggestion has been put to the victim girl, during the course of cross examination that inasmuch as she was in love with the accused and she on her own volition came to Mahabalipuram along with the accused without any protest. No doubt, the abovesaid suggestion has been denied by the victim girl. 12. The victim girl’s mother has been examined as P.W.6 and P.W.6 Ashapriya, during the course of her evidence has stated that she does not know whether the accused was engaged in love with her daughter and does not know whether her daughter had written the love letters to the accused and further admitted that her daughter is found in the photos marked as Exs.D1 and D2. 13. 13. Considering the abovesaid factors and the materials available on record, when as above pointed out, the prosecution having miserably failed to establish that the victim girl was a minor as putforth by them on the date of occurrence and further when it is noted that the victim girl had acquaintance with the accused much prior to the occurrence and accordingly they were engaged in conversation and when from Exs.D3 and D4 letters, the victim girl is found to have written the love letters to the accused and the victim girl having also admitted that the accused was in love with her and does not know whether he still loves her, in such view of the matter, it is found that, the victim girl and the accused were engaged in love and accordingly, it is noted that the victim girl had left with accused and therefore to say that the victim girl had been kidnapped by the accused on the false promise of marrying her, as such, cannot be safely accepted and countenanced. 14. Now according to the prosecution, the accused by taking the victim girl to Mahabalipuram on the false promise of marrying her, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and thereby committed the offences levelled against him. In this connection, the victim girl has tendered evidence. As above pointed out, according to P.W.6, the victim’s mother, the victim girl came to home on 20.06.2010 at about 20.00 hours and immediately she had taken her to the Police Station and thereafter, according to the prosecution, she was subjected to the medical test. The Medical Officer who had examined the victim girl, P.W.10 during her chief examination has stated that when she questioned/enquired the victim girl, the victim girl apprised her that the accused Pradeep Kumar is her friend’s brother and they were in love with each other for the past 2½ years and on 17.06.2010, she went along with him to Mahabalipuram and stayed with him for four days and also married him and on the above said representation made by the accused, she proceeded to examine the victim girl. Therefore, when as per the statement or admission given by the victim girl to the medical officer as deposed by the Medical Officer P.W.10, it is seen that the victim girl and the accused were engaged in love for more than 2½ years and accordingly it is further noted that the victim girl on her own accord, proceeded with the accused to Mahabalipuram and stayed with him for four days and it is also found that the victim girl has got married with the accused. Therefore, the abovesaid aspects of the matter would only expose the weakness of the prosecution case that the victim girl had been kidnapped by the accused against her will and on the false promise of marrying her. 15. The medical officer P.W.10 after examining the victim girl on 24.06.2020 had issued the report marked as Ex.P8 and the opinion reflected in Ex.P.8 reads that the victim girl shows the evidence of sexual intercourse. According to the medical officer P.W.10, no external injuries were seen over mammal, cheeks, thighs, genitals on genital examination and her hymen is found to be showing healed rears at 60, 90 clock position. Further it is seen that the vaginal smear collected from the victim girl was sent for chemical examination and the report marked as Ex.P.10 discloses that no semen was detected in item No.2 received from the Court. As above pointed out, according to the Medical Officer P.W.10, the victim is aged between 16 to 18 years. Further it is seen that the vaginal smear collected from the victim girl was sent for chemical examination and the report marked as Ex.P.10 discloses that no semen was detected in item No.2 received from the Court. As above pointed out, according to the Medical Officer P.W.10, the victim is aged between 16 to 18 years. Therefore, when the medical report of the victim girl shows only signs of her sexual intercourse and nothing more than that and when Ex.P.10 also does not disclose the presence of any semen in the vaginal smear collected from victim girl and when it has not been made clear by the prosecution as to whether any test had been conducted by them as regards the clothes of the victim girl and the accused said to have been collected pursuant to the information/confession made by the accused and marked as M.Os 1 to 7, in such view of the matter, when from Ex.P8 medical report, it cannot be inferred that the victim girl had been subjected to forcible sex against her consent and will and particularly when no injuries had been noted in the private parts of the victim girl as such and when the medical officer has not disclosed anything about the same in her certificate marked as Ex.P8, no doubt the hymen is found to be not intact, it is found that the medical reports projected in the matter do not advance the case of the prosecution that the victim girl had been subjected to forcible sex by the accused as alleged by them. 16. Now the prosecution has produced the medical report of the accused to show that he is a potent person and the same would not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution that it is only the accused who had committed the forcible sex on the victim girl against her consent and will. 17. 16. Now the prosecution has produced the medical report of the accused to show that he is a potent person and the same would not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution that it is only the accused who had committed the forcible sex on the victim girl against her consent and will. 17. In the light of the abovesaid factors, when the case projected by the victim girl that she had been kidnapped by the accused on the false promise of marrying her and committed forcible sex on her is not supported by the medical records placed in the matter and when as above pointed out, the victim girl’s age has not been established by the prosecution particularly that she was a minor and she was aged about only 13 years on the date of the occurrence and on the other hand, when as per Ex.P9 and as per the evidence of P.W.10, the victim girl’s age is found to be between 16-18 years and as above pointed out, the victim girl and the accused were engaged in love prior to the occurrence and accordingly it is seen that the victim girl showing the signs of having sexual intercourse as reflected in Ex.P.8, would not lead to the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the offence of kidnapping and raped her. 18. Insofar as the case projected by the prosecution that the accused had taken the victim girl to Mahabalipuram and stayed with her for three days and booked a room in the lodge in the name of Prabhakaran for three days and stayed with the victim girl etc., though the I.O would claim that he examined only the owner of the lodge and other persons with reference to the same, no one has been examined pointing to the same that the victim girl and the accused were at Mahabalipuram for three days in a room booked in the name of one Prabhakaran. As to why the prosecution had not endeavored to establish the same, no proper explanation is forthcoming. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the accused counsel, the prosecution has also not endeavored to seize the bed sheet and clothes from the lodge where the accused and victim girl were alleged to have been staying for three days. 19. As to why the prosecution had not endeavored to establish the same, no proper explanation is forthcoming. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the accused counsel, the prosecution has also not endeavored to seize the bed sheet and clothes from the lodge where the accused and victim girl were alleged to have been staying for three days. 19. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, when with reference to the acts attributed against the accused i.e., that he had kidnapped the victim girl and raped her, when the victim girl’s evidence is not fortified by the medical evidence projected in the matter and as above pointed out when the victim girl’s age itself has not been clearly established by the prosecution particularly that she was a minor on the date of the occurrence and when P.Ws.2 to 4 have turned hostile and totally not supported by the prosecution and when P.W.6, the victim girl’s mother has no direct knowledge about the alleged occurrence and she would only say about the occurrence as narrated to her by the victim girl and when the other prosecution witnesses are only found to be official witnesses, in such view of the matter, the prosecution case cannot be safely relied upon based on the unacceptable and unreliable evidence of the victim girl. 20. According to the prosecution, the victim girl was found missing from home on 17.06.2010 and the victim girl’s mother lodged a complaint with reference to the same on 18.06.2010. The complaint lodged by P.W.6, the victim girl’s mother has been marked as Ex.P6. From Ex.P6, it is found that the case had been registered under section “ girl missing” and according to the prosecution case, the complaint was lodged by P.W.6 on 17.06.2010 and based on the same, the printed F.I.R has been issued which has been marked as Ex.P.17. However, it is found that Ex.P.17 F.I.R has been sent to the Court only on 21.06.2010. As to why it had not been forwarded to the Court immediately on the date of the registration of the F.I.R, no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution. Tmt.Gokila the Sub Inspector of Police has registered the F.I.R based on Ex.P.6 complaint. As to why it had not been forwarded to the Court immediately on the date of the registration of the F.I.R, no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution. Tmt.Gokila the Sub Inspector of Police has registered the F.I.R based on Ex.P.6 complaint. On a perusal of Ex.P.17, F.I.R, it is found that the entries as against the column Act, Sections, whitener had been used and thereafter written as “girl missing” and furthermore as against the columns occurrence/offence date and information received at Police Station, whitener had been used and date has been written as 17.06.2010 and 18.06.2010, the same had been admitted by P.W.12. As above pointed out, the printed F.I.R has been forwarded to the Court only on 21.06.2010 at about 5.45 pm and the same has also been admitted by P.W.10. As per the I.O examined as P.W.13, the victim girl was brought to the police station by her mother on 20.06.2010. Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether Ex.P.6 complaint would have lodged on 17.06.2010 by P.W.6 as projected by the prosecution and it is also highly doubtful, based on Ex.P6 complaint, the police would have registered the case as girl missing on 18.06.2010 itself. If that be so, there is no necessity for using the whitener as above pointed out in the printed F.I.R in the relevant columns and in addition to that when as found that even before the F.I.R had been despatched to the Court, the victim girl had been brought to the Police Station on 20.06.2010 itself and when with reference to the same, the abovesaid discrepancies, there is no proper explanation projected on the part of the prosecution, a serious doubt arises as regards the genuineness of the complaint lodged in the matter as well as the F.I.R registered based on the same. Therefore, as rightly contended by the accused counsel, considering the abovesaid factors in toto particularly when the complaint and the F.I.R projected in the matter shows a serious doubt on their credibility, based on the same, it is seen that a serious doubt arises as regards the genuineness of the complaint and it is highly doubtful whether the complaint Ex.P.6 would have lodged on 17.06.2010/18.06.2010 as projected by the prosecution. The abovesaid factors assume importance in the case, inasmuch as the victim girl had left with the accused on her own accord and thereafter returned home on 20.06.2010, in such view of the matter, it is highly doubtful whether the complaint at all would have been lodged by P.W.6 on 17.06.2010 as putforth by the prosecution. 21. The prosecution has also projected a case as if the accused has taken the jewel belonging to the victim girl and the same had been recovered at the Pawn shop and with reference to the same they had examined P.W.5 Narenlal and marked Ex.P5 receipt. However the abovesaid prosecution case cannot be believed and accepted. P.W5 had admitted during the course of cross examination that Ex.P5 does not contain his signature and the same appears to be the signature of the person working in the Pawn shop and the said person only would have noticed the person who had given the jewel. Therefore based on Ex.P5 it cannot be held that the it is only the accused who had pledged the jewel. In any event, it is not the version of P.W.1, the victim girl, that she had entrusted her jewel to the accused before proceeding to Mahabalipuram with him. When P.W.1 victim girl has not spoken anything about the entrustment of the jewel to the accused, the case projected by the prosecution that the accused has pledged the jewel with P.W.5 cannot be accepted and believed in any manner. In this connection, the I.O P.W.13 during the course of cross examination has admitted that during his investigation, the victim girl did not say that she had entrusted her jewel to the accused. In this connection, the I.O P.W.13 during the course of cross examination has admitted that during his investigation, the victim girl did not say that she had entrusted her jewel to the accused. Further he has also admitted that the victim girl did not state to him that the accused deceived her and took her by stating that his friends are waiting for them and further admitted that the victim girl did not state to him that the accused locked her in a room and forced her and already had admitted that he had not recovered the bed sheet and clothes from the room where the accused and the victim girl had stayed and he has stated that the clothes of the victim girl collected had been sent for chemical examination and the report is Ex.P.10 and as above pointed out and as per report marked as Ex.P.10, nothing incriminating is noted against the accused. The said report is only found to be with reference to the vaginal smear collected from the victim girl at the time of her examination by medical officer P.W.10. Therefore from the evidence of I.O, it is found that no statement had been offered to him by the victim girl that she was locked in the room and forced by the accused and that no statement had been made by the victim girl that she had entrusted her jewel/chain to the accused. 22. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, when the victim girl is found to be engaged in love with the accused and resultantly found to have proceeded with him to Mahabalipuram on her own accord, also found to have been engaged in sexual intercourse and as above pointed out when the forcible sex alleged by the victim girl is not supported by the medical evidence and the victim girl is not shown to be a minor as alleged by the prosecution, it is seen that the offences lodged against the accused cannot be held to be established beyond reasonable doubt as determined by the trial court. 23. In this connection, the Government Advocate contended that insofar as the offence of rape is concerned, the victim girl’s evidence is solely sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the accused. The abovesaid position of law is not in dispute. 23. In this connection, the Government Advocate contended that insofar as the offence of rape is concerned, the victim girl’s evidence is solely sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the accused. The abovesaid position of law is not in dispute. However the Apex Court in the decision rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1095 of 2018 dated 29.08.2018 [Dola @ Dolagobinda Pradhan and another Vs. The State of Odisha] has held that the testimony of the victim girl can be relied upon provided it inspires confidence and supported by medical evidence and further held that the when the case of the victim girl is not supported by medical evidence and the whole surrounding circumstances are also highly improbable and belie the case set up by her, the Court should not act on the solitary evidence of the victim girl and further pointed out that the accused also should be protected against the possibility of false implication. The abovesaid position of law with reference to the same has been highlighted by the Apex Court in the above said decision and the same is indicated below: 7. In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra, [ (2006) 10 SCC 92 ], this Court reiterated that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix could be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the Court: 9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen. 8. However, as is also evident from the observations above, such reliance may be placed only if the testimony of the prosecutrix appears to be worthy of credence. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following observations of this Court in the case of Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [ (2008) 15 SCC 133 ], which read thus: 10. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following observations of this Court in the case of Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [ (2008) 15 SCC 133 ], which read thus: 10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the court. 11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actuals assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. having due regard in our mind to the above mentioned settled position in law, we have assessed the entire material on record meticulously. 24. The counsel for the accused in support of his contentions also placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2018 (2) Law Weekly (Crl)71 [K.Sekar and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. having due regard in our mind to the above mentioned settled position in law, we have assessed the entire material on record meticulously. 24. The counsel for the accused in support of his contentions also placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2018 (2) Law Weekly (Crl)71 [K.Sekar and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Melmaruathur] Considering the principles of law outlined by the Apex court in the above referred decision, on the whole, when it is seen that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim girl is a minor on the date of occurrence and on the other hand, when the victim girl is found to be aged between 16 to 18 years and when the victim girl is found to be engaged in love with the accused and on her own accord left with him and also claimed to have married him at Mahabalipuram to the medical officer, as above pointed out and when the victim girl’s version that the accused had forcible sex with her is not supported by medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances also did not lend support to the victim girl’s version as above discussed, in such view of the matter, when the prosecution case is beset with serious suspicions, doubts, conjectures, loopholes and defects and when with reference to the same, no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution to clear the same, in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion the benefit of doubt emanating from the same should be extended in favour of the accused and accordingly the same is extended in favour of the accused and consequently I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the offences levelled against the accused under section 366(A), 376 IPC and acquit him thereof. 25. For the reasons aforestated, the judgment dated 04.12.2012 passed in S.C.No.318 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused under section 366(A) and 376 IPC are setaside and the accused is acquitted of the offences putforth against him under section 366A and 376 IPC and accordingly the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Bail Bond if any executed by the accused shall stand discharged. Fine amount paid by the accused shall be refunded to him.