JUDGMENT Per : Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2012, “State Vs. Parvinder alias Parveen Sajwan and Irfan", whereby the respondents-accused persons are acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidences on record is that, on 26.07.2012 at 18.20 p.m., father of the prosecutrix, PW3, lodged an F.I.R., Ex-ka4 through his written information, Ex-ka1, with the allegations that his daughter/prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, went to purchase books at Chamba on 24.07.2012. She did not return home till sunset, and thereafter a search was made, but in vain. A call was received by him from mobile phone number 8126383889 in the night of 25.07.2012. The caller informed him that his daughter was with him and he wanted to marry his daughter. On the morning of 26.07.2012, the informant received an information that his daughter was at Chamba Crossroad. He along with other villagers went there and found that two persons were in conversation with his daughter at Old Tehri Road. Both of them tried to escape, but respondent-accused Parvinder was caught at the spot and another accused, Irfan, was caught from the workshop. Both the accused persons were brought to the police station. On asking the prosecutrix, it was found that both the accused persons locked her in the workshop from 24.07.2012. She also informed that the accused Parvinder used to come to her school and lure her with his marriage proposal. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the F.I.R. was registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the I.P.C. against both the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Code") on 28.07.2012 and she was medically examined on 29.08.2012. A stained blue coloured Jeans Pantaloon of the prosecutrix was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Uttarakhand and according to the report dated 31.10.2012 of the Laboratory, semen was detected but blood could not be detected on the Jeans Pantaloon. The matter was investigated and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The matter was investigated and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The charge under Section 376(g) of the I.P.C. was framed against both the accused. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge, examined, altogether, five witnesses. Medical report of the prosecutrix has not been disputed by the accused persons under Section 294 of the Code. The respondents-accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code. Learned trial court heard arguments, appreciated the evidences and held that the prosecution has not been successful to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. 3. Due to the death of the respondent-accused Parvinder during the appeal, the appeal was abated against him under sub-section (1) of Section 394 of the Code. 4. Heard Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State-appellant and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent, Irfan, through video conferencing. 5. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that learned trial court has not weighed and assessed the prosecution evidence since the material evidences available on the record. Therefore, the order of acquittal is not justified in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent, Irfan, has supported the impugned judgment and order. 7. The law is well settled that order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of the innocence of the accused. It is equally the duty of the court to see that the guilty do not escape punishment. We will consider the instant case in light of these principles. Therefore, we have carefully assessed the evidences adduced by the prosecution. 8. PW1 is prosecutrix. PW2 is mother and PW3 is father of the prosecutrix. PW4 is scribe of chick-report and PW5 is Investigating Officer. 9. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that prosecution has filed a photostat copy of High School Failure Certificate of the prosecutrix and according to that, date of birth of the prosecutrix was 18.06.1997 and therefore, she was below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence, however, he fairly conceded that said Certificate is not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the said document cannot be read in evidence. 10. In the present case, the prosecutrix appeared in the court as PW1. Therefore, the said document cannot be read in evidence. 10. In the present case, the prosecutrix appeared in the court as PW1. Her statement in examination-in-chief is that she went to Chamba on 24.07.2012 for purchasing books. The accused persons took her to their workshop at Old Tehri and committed rape upon her 2-3 times on 25th and 26th. This statement was recorded on 31.01.2013. At that time, she stated her age 15 years while earlier she had stated her age 17 years in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, recorded on 28.07.2012. In the F.I.R., lodged by her father, age of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 17 years. PW2 is mother of the prosecutrix. She stated her daughter's age 15 years. She stated in her cross-examination that she could not tell her daughter's date of birth, although she has admitted that she told the police that her daughter was 17 years old. According to the radiological report, the age of the prosecutrix was eighteen years. PW3 is father of the prosecutrix. He stated in his cross-examination on 01.02.2013 that he has two children i.e. one son, 20 years old, and one daughter, prosecutrix, who was born one year after his son was born. In these circumstances, the possibility of the prosecutrix being more than 18 years of age cannot be ruled out. 11. The prosecutrix in her cross-examination has admitted that the accused Parvinder was known to her and she was ready to marry with him, but, her father did not want to marry her with Parvinder. She stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Code that Parvinder had said that he wanted to marry her and that he was taking her to the temple, on the way she met her parents and villagers who took her and accused persons to Chamba police station. 12. The prosecutrix stated that she had gone from Chamba intersection to the workshop on a motorcycle on which she was with the accused. She stated that both the accused met her at Chamba intersection, but, in her earlier statement under Section 164 of the Code, she stated that Parvinder had met in Chamba and other accused had met in the workshop. She stated that both the accused met her at Chamba intersection, but, in her earlier statement under Section 164 of the Code, she stated that Parvinder had met in Chamba and other accused had met in the workshop. She made a statement in her cross-examination that she had made a noise when she was going to the workshop on the motorcycle, but, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, she has not made any such assertion that she made any noise. She has given a statement that on the 24th and 25th, the accused persons raped her. But, according to her statement under Section 164 of the Code, she was not raped on the 25th. She stated in her cross-examination that whatever had happened to her, she had told her father, but, the fact that accused persons raped her is not mentioned in the F.I.R., lodged by her father. According to medical report of the prosecutrix, no injury was found on any part of her body and there were no signs suggestive of forced sexual assault. Therefore, medical report of the prosecutrix does not support the prosecution story. The statement of the prosecutrix has also material contradictions. 13. In Kaini Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, 2015(2) CCSC 735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the version of victim, in rape commands great respect and acceptability, but, if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of the Court of the veracity of the victim's evidence, then, it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated version of the victim of rape. 14. An accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but the said testimony must inspire confidence and appear to be truthful and if the statement of the prosecutrix has inherent infirmities, creating doubt, the same may not be acted upon. The present case the circumstances taken as a whole creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. 15. As a result, in the facts and circumstances of this instant appeal, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. 16. The present case the circumstances taken as a whole creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. 15. As a result, in the facts and circumstances of this instant appeal, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. 16. The respondent Irfan is directed to make compliance of Section 437-A of the Code within three weeks from the date of this order by appearing before the court concerned and execute a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, which shall be effective for a period of six months. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for intimation and compliance.