JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that on verification of the whereabouts about the appellants, accused appellant Dongar Singh is reported to have died. 2. In view of the above statement, the appeal filed by the accused appellant Dongar Singh stands abated. 3. So far as appeal of accused appellant Nihal Singh is concerned, challenge in the instant criminal appeal has been made by the appellant-Nihal Singh to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.07.1989 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, [for short 'the learned trial Court'] in Sessions Case No. 148/85, State of Rajasthan vs. Nihal Singh And Anr., whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant-Nihal Singh as under:- U/s. 376 IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- U/s. 363 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- U/s. 366 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- U/s. 368 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- Each of the offence, in default of payment of fine appellant-Nihal Singh has been further directed to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Facts of the case in nutshell are that Kumari Krishna (PW. 2) gave a Parcha Bayan (Ex. P3) on 29.07.1984 at 7.30 AM, which was recorded by Mr. Vikram Singh Chahar, ASI, in which, she mentioned that near to her house in the house of Lal Chand, Nihal Singh used to reside with his wife Smt. Kamlesh and brother-in-law-Dongar Singh. Both of them used to do work of stitching in a Factory. She oftenly used to visit at Nihal Singh's house to meet Kamlesh (wife of Nihal Singh). Nihal Singh promised to solemnize marriage with her. On 02.07.1984, at about 7.30 PM Nihal Singh and his brother-in-law Dongar Singh took her along with to Delhi. Thereafter, from Delhi they reached to Agra and from Agra, they reached village Mudiyapura. At village Mudiyapura, she met family members of Nihal Singh. When the parents of Nihal Singh inquired about her, Nihal Singh replied that she (victim) is known to him and both would marry. She stayed there approximately 15 days. Nihal Singh forcibly did intercourse with her one overnight. At village Mudiyapura, she met family members of Nihal Singh. When the parents of Nihal Singh inquired about her, Nihal Singh replied that she (victim) is known to him and both would marry. She stayed there approximately 15 days. Nihal Singh forcibly did intercourse with her one overnight. Thereafter both of them (Nihal Singh and Dongar Singh) took her to village Karilpur where the 'Mama', maternal uncle of Dongar Singh used to reside. Nihal Singh kept her at Karilpur in the house of Jai Singh Thakur. Both of them tried to sell her to some persons but none choose her. Thereafter, Nihal Singh left her with Dongar Singh at village Karilpur and went Delhi. Dongar Singh committed intercourse forcefully 2 to 3 nights. 6. On the basis of aforesaid Parcha Bayan (Ex. P3), before the Police, an FIR No. 114/1984 (Ex. P4), was registered at Police Station Rajakheda, for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 368, 372 and 376 IPC. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons in the Court concerned for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 368, 372 and 376 IPC. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences, the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 7. The prosecution to prove its case, produced five witnesses and exhibited 7 documents. 8. Thereafter, the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-appellant did not produce any defence witness nor exhibited any document in defence. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to produce independent witnesses in this case. While appreciating the evidence in a criminal case, the Court should keep in view the two cardinal principles viz that the guilt against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden on the accused is not so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lay on the prosecution. The burden can be discharged by the accused merely by showing the preponderance of probability in favour of the plea taken by him. The trial Court wrongly read the evidence of PW. 3-Raj Pal. PW. 3 Raj Pal did not lodge the report at Delhi where the alleged incident of kidnapping of his daughter by some persons took place. The burden can be discharged by the accused merely by showing the preponderance of probability in favour of the plea taken by him. The trial Court wrongly read the evidence of PW. 3-Raj Pal. PW. 3 Raj Pal did not lodge the report at Delhi where the alleged incident of kidnapping of his daughter by some persons took place. The trial Court erred in convicting the accused appellant Nihal Singh on the basis of statement of victim (PW. 2). Victim in her testimony deposed that she travelled various places by bus but during the course of travel she did not raise any alarm. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the case because no witnesses in regard to detention of victim in the villages or elsewhere were produced. The trial Court erred in considering the testimony of Dr. Veena Goyal (PW. 4). The trial Court had erred in not considering that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Thus, the trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant Nihal Singh. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellant and supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and material placed on record. 12. PW. 2 deposed that the accused-appellants were neighbours, she went along with accused Nihal Singh to his village and stayed for about 10 to 15 days, from village Mudiyapura she went along with Nihal Singh and Dongar Singh to village Karilpur where she stayed 3 to 4 days. 13. PW. 2 victim deposed that Nihal Singh and Dongar Singh tried to sell her, Nihal Singh left her village Karilpur. The police came from Rajakhera to trace her and the police arrested Dongar Singh and her statement (Parcha Bayan) was recorded which is Ex. P3. In cross-examination, victim admits that she came in touch with so many persons during journey on the way to Agra, Delhi and village Karilpur and stayed at the residence of Nihal Singh in village Karilpur, at the residence of accused, other family members were also present. P3. In cross-examination, victim admits that she came in touch with so many persons during journey on the way to Agra, Delhi and village Karilpur and stayed at the residence of Nihal Singh in village Karilpur, at the residence of accused, other family members were also present. The victim in cross-examination admits ad-infra :- ^^?kj esa jgus okyksa us iwNk D;ksa vkbZ gks rks eqfYte us dgk 'kknh djus yk;k gwWqA eqfYte dh 2 cfgusa rhu HkkbZ mu dh cgq,a o cPps FksA ogka ls cl os vkbZ FkhA djhyiqj vkbZ FkhA eqfM+;k [ksjk esa jkr dks vkSjrksa ds ikl lksrh FkhA vkneh ckgj lksrs FksA eqfM+;k [ksjk ls ge [ksM+k vk;s fQj djhyiqj vk;sA ogks ls iSny gh djhyiqj x;s FksA jktk[ksM+k cl LVsaM ds ikl iqfyl Fkkuk gSA vkxjk eqfM+;k [ksM+k jktk[ksM+k ds cl LVsaM ij eq>s lSdM+ks vkneh turk ds feysA iqfyl Hkh feyhA eq>s dgus gh ugha fn;kA blfy;s eSaus fdlh dks ugha dgkA fpjkx fnYyh ds cl LVSaM ij turk ds vkneh FksA VªSfQd ds iqfyl okys ugha ns[ksA rc esjk fnekx [kjkc dj fn;kA rc eSaus fdlh dks ugha dgk A ml oDr esjh 'kknh ugha gqbZ FkhA eSa 'kknh ugha djuk pkgrh FkhA ml le; esjh eka iSnk gksrs gh ej xbZ FkhA ;g xyr gS fd vkt ls 5&6 lky igus esjh eka dgha Hkkx xbZ gksA esjs HkkbZ lqjsUnz dh 'kknh 3 lky igys gks xbZA og fu;kZr dk /ka/kk djrk gSA lqcg tkrk gS 'kke dks vkrk gSA fnYyh esa igkM+h ij VV~Vh djus tkrh FkhA djhyiqj esa Mksaxj flag dh eka o NksVh cPph FkhA fugky flag djhyiqj esa 2&3 fnu jgk FkkA dqy 4&5 fnu jgh FkhA djhyiqj esa vanj dejs esa lksrh FkhA vanj ml dh eka Hkh lksrh FkhA djhyiqj jgus ds nkSjku eSa dHkh /kkSyiqj ugha vkbZA Mksaxj flag us dksVZ eSfjt dh ckr dh Fkh ij og gks ugha ikbZ rc gh iqfyl us idM+ fy;kA fugky flag us jkr dks esjs lkFk xyr dke fd;k FkkA eSa mldh NksVh HkkHkh ds ikl lks jgh FkhA ogka ls cqykdj ys x;k rks eSa pyh xbZA og FkksM+h nwj dejs esa lks jgk FkkA djhyiqj esa Mksaxj flag us Hkh esjs lkFk cqjk dke fd;k mlus eq>s cqyk;k FkkA eSa pyh xbZA ogka ikl esa vkaxu esa gh ekek&ekeh pkbZikbZ;ksa esa lks jgs FksA cPps Hkh lks jgs Fks mlh vkaxu esa Mksaxj flag us cqjk dke fd;k FkkA djhyiqj esa eSaus ekek&ekeh dks crk;k Fkk fd ;s yksx ysdj vk;s gSa 'kknh djus yk;s gSaA eSa mu O;fDr;ksa ds uke o gqfy;k ugha crk ldrh ftuls eq>s cspus dh ckr dh FkhA Mksaxj flag dqavkjk gSA ;g ckr ckn esa irk pyhA eSa 2 tqykbZ dks fnYyh ls pyh FkhA 29&30 tqykbZ dks idM+k FkkA iqfyl dks eSaus ugha dgk fd eSa dksVZ eSfjt djus vkbZ gwWaA Fkkusnkj us eq>s ,d FkIiM+ ekjk Fkk vkSj dgk cksy lp ckr D;k gSA dkeys'k ds ?kj esa eSa [kqn tk;k djrh FkhA mldk ?kj fcYdqy fpirk FkkA** 14. On analysis, the statement of PW. 2 prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. There are serious contradictions in her statement. Thus, this witness looses credibility and from her own version, the prosecution story seems improbable and devoid of trust. The statement of PW. 2 prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and deliberate improvements on material point, reliance cannot be placed thereon. 15. The statement of prosecutrix shows several lacunae. There are serious contradictions in her statement and she has made material improvements. 16. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. The appellant- Nihal Singh son of Bhimsen is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. 17. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C., the appellant-Nihal Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant-Nihal Singh on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 18. Record of the court below be returned forthwith.