JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been filed by the accused appellants Badri Prasad Meena and Dhara Singh (who subsequently died and on an IA No. 25632/2017 having been filed by Abhishek S/o late Dhara Singh seeking leave to continue the appeal, application was allowed and he was permitted to continue the appeal) against the judgment dated 25.2.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 130/2014, whereby while acquitting the accused appellants for the offence under Section 5(g) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, they have been convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year's simple imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that on 17.7.2012, the complainant Ramesh Chandra submitted a written report at Police Arakshi Kendra, Tehala, District Alwar, wherein it was mentioned that on 4.7.2012 at about 8.00 AM he went to mines to work there and his wife Kamli also went for NREGA labour work. At about 11.00 AM, his younger daughter Mst. T.B. went to the mines to hand over food to her father and after handing over food to him, she departed, but did not reach home. He searched for Mst. T.B., but could not find her. On enquiry, his elder daughter Mst. M.B. informed that teachers Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad who used to teach them in Tilwadi, had given a Mobile Phone with SIM No. 9166899217 to them. They used to talk on the aforesaid Mobile Phone. It was also submitted that when telephone calls were made at the aforesaid mobile number, the mobile phone was found switched off. The complainant's daughter Mst. T.B. was stated to be about 15 years of age and she was alleged to have been kidnapped by the aforesaid two persons (accused appellants). 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR No. 98/2012 at Police Station, Tehala, Distt. Alwar for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellants Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. 4. Learned Addl. Alwar for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellants Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. 4. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh framed charges against the accused appellants Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, which was denied by them and claimed for trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited documents. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 CrPC. 6. Since the case was related to the offence punishable under Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth, ‘the Act of 2012’), which is triable by Sessions Court, the case was transferred from the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh to the Court of Sessions for trial. 7. After hearing arguments, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 25.2.2015 while acquitting the accused appellants for the offence under Section 5(g) readwith Section 6 of the POCSO Act, convicted them for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them, as indicated above. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellants and learned PP appearing for the State. 9. At the out-set, Mr. N.A. Naqvi, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mukesh Kumar Meena, Advocate and Mr. Syed Adeel Naqvi, Advocate submits that during the pendency of appeal, accused appellant Dhara Singh expired on 7.11.2017. Accordingly, an application under Section 394 CrPC was filed by his son Abhishek Meena (IA No. 25632/2017) seeking leave to continue the appeal, which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.2.2018. Amended cause title was also filed, which was taken on record. 10. Learned counsel further submits that there are two prosecutrix in this case namely Mst. T.B. and M.B. He further submits that as per the statement of PW-1 Mst. M.B., her date of birth is 10.1.1994 concluding/indicating that she was 18 years of age. This fact is well established from the report of Radiologist of Rajiv Gandhi Govt. General Hospital, Alwar (Ex.-P/22). 11. So far as Mst. T.B. is concerned, although she was not medically examined, but as per the prosecution story, she was a minor. 12. He further submits that conviction of the accused appellants is based on the statement of PW-1 and PW-2. 13. General Hospital, Alwar (Ex.-P/22). 11. So far as Mst. T.B. is concerned, although she was not medically examined, but as per the prosecution story, she was a minor. 12. He further submits that conviction of the accused appellants is based on the statement of PW-1 and PW-2. 13. So far as PW-1 Mst. M.B. is concerned, her statement is not reliable. According to PW-1 Mst. M.B., incident took place in the kitchen of the school. In her cross-examination, PW-1 Mst. M.B. admitted that she narrated the entire incident to her uncle, Lallu Ram. She further admitted that her uncle disclosed the details of the incident to her father (lodger of the FIR), but in the written report (Ex.-D/1) nothing was mentioned in regard to rape having been committed with the prosecutrix. 14. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that when Mst. M.B. had narrated about the entire incident to her uncle and subsequently informed about it to prosecutrix's father, then why was the rape incident not mentioned in the written report. 15. He further submits that statement of PW-1 Mst. M.B. is not corroborated with medical report (Ex.P/2). He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of Dr. Kanchan Batra (PW-16), who conducted the medical examination of Mst. M.B. According to her statement, there was no injury mark on the body and breast of Mst. M.B. 16. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that as per the case of prosecution, the incident took place in the kitchen of the school. The place of incident was inspected by PW-18 Mustafa Ali Zaidi and no signs of rape, as alleged to have been committed with the prosecutrix, were found there. 17. He further submits that statement of PW-1 Mst. M.B. is not corroborated with the statement of her own sister PW-2 Mst. T.B. and PW-18 Mustafa Ali Zaidi. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, PW-2 Mst. T.B. categorically stated that neither the accused appellants gave any mobile phone to her nor anything wrong was done with her. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards statement of Mst. T.B. recorded under Section 164 of CrPC (Ex. P/5), wherein she stated that in their class, two teachers Dhara Singh Meena and Badri Prasad Meena used to teach them. Their behaviour towards everyone was good. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards statement of Mst. T.B. recorded under Section 164 of CrPC (Ex. P/5), wherein she stated that in their class, two teachers Dhara Singh Meena and Badri Prasad Meena used to teach them. Their behaviour towards everyone was good. They treated the sisters as children and neither of them called the sisters for preparing tea on holidays, nor did anything wrong with them. Her father lodged a false case against them and similarly her elder sister Mst. M.B. gave a false statement against them. She further stated that her father wanted to sell her to some other person. Due to this fear, on 4.12.2012 at about 9-10 AM she went alone in a Bus to Haryana to the village of her previously known uncle Ajeet. 18. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that Mst. T.B. at the time of recording her statement as PW-2 disclosed about the incident for first time before the trial court, whereas nothing of this sort was stated by her when her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded. Similarly, nothing in this regard was stated when she was produced before this Court in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 165/2015. Thus, her statement cannot be relied upon. 19. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order sheets of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 165/2012 (Ex.-D/4 to Ex.-D/7) and submits that Mst. T.B. was recovered and produced before the Court on 7.1.2013. However, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed to lodge Mst. T.B. in the Balika Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and adjourned the matter to 15.1.2013. Thereafter, in light of the fact that she was a minor as per her school certificate and was not inclined to go with her father, Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 15.1.2013 again directed that Mst. T.B. would remain in Balika Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and adjourned the matter to 21.1.2013. On 21.1.2013, Mst. T.B. was produced before the Court and sent to Balika Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. Neither on 7.1.2013 or on 15.1.2013 or on 21.1.2013, she had deposed against the accused appellants. 20. Learned Sr. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order sheet dated 21.1.2013 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 165/2012 and submitted that although Mst. Neither on 7.1.2013 or on 15.1.2013 or on 21.1.2013, she had deposed against the accused appellants. 20. Learned Sr. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order sheet dated 21.1.2013 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 165/2012 and submitted that although Mst. T.B. wanted to go with Sukhram, but keeping in mind her age (minor), the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.2.2013 handed over the custody of Mst. T.B. to her parents in light of the fact that matter was being reconciled on the condition that Police Authorities may not take any stringent action against Sukhram. 21. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that as per the prosecution case, the incident took place in the kitchen after school hours. He has drawn the attention towards the statement of PW-9 Keshri Devi (incharge of the kitchen), who in her statement categorically stated that no such incident took place before her with the prosecutrix. She had not heard anything. In her cross-examination, she stated that key of the kitchen was with her. She further stated that after serving Posha Ahar to children, she used to go to her house after closing the door of kitchen and putting a lock thereon. She further stated that school key was with the Head Master. She admitted that after school hours, the Head Master used to close the school in her presence and took keys with him. This proves that accused appellants did not have any key of the school or kitchen or store. He submits that there was no occasion for the accused appellants to remain alone with the prosecutrix. 22. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that as per the statement of PW-2 Mst. T.B., she was recovered on 31.12.2012 in the Hotel in Dhigawada and thereafter she was produced before this Court on 7.1.2013 in Habeas Corpus Petition. However, the accused appellants had already been arrested on 17.9.2012, as is evident from Ex.-P/6 and P/7, prior to the recovery of PW-2 Mst. T.B. and charge sheet was filed on 12.12.2012. Both these things were done prior to the recovery of prosecutrix Mst. However, the accused appellants had already been arrested on 17.9.2012, as is evident from Ex.-P/6 and P/7, prior to the recovery of PW-2 Mst. T.B. and charge sheet was filed on 12.12.2012. Both these things were done prior to the recovery of prosecutrix Mst. T.B. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of PW-17 Bhagwan Sahai, wherein he mentioned that charge sheet against the accused appellants was filed by him on 12.12.2012 and investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC was kept pending against prosecutrix Mst. T.B. and accused Sukhram. 23. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that as per the prosecution case, the accused appellants had given mobile phone to the prosecutrix and they used to make calls on the concerned mobile phone. This fact was also mentioned in the FIR and this was admitted by PW-1 Mst. M.B. in her statement that accused persons used to make their video clip in the mobile. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of PW-18 Mustafa Ali Zaidi, who admitted that no such video clip was recovered by him. He further submits that statement of PW-1 is not corroborated with any other evidence. Despite the fact that she was major, she kept quite for a long period of 3 years and did not disclose to anybody about the incident. 24. Learned Sr. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards T.C. of one of the prosecutrix issued on 9.5.2011 (at page 108 of the paper book) and T.C. of another prosecutrix issued on 9.5.2011 (at page 111 of the paper book). He submits that in 2012, at thertime when FIR was lodged, both the prosecutrix were not the students of the school. 25. He further submits that the accused appellants have been roped in this case to respect the orders of this Court in Habeas Corpus Petition with a view to protect Sukh Ram. He submits that the findings arrived at by the Trial Court is contrary to the material on record and thus, the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 26. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 (suppl.) Cr. Law Reporter (SC) 562. 26. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 (suppl.) Cr. Law Reporter (SC) 562. (ii) State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Sait Alias Krishnakumar reported in (2008) 15 SCC 440 . (iii) Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 (2) Criminal Law Reporter (Raj.) 579. (iv) Duli Chand v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Cr. Law Reporter (Raj.) 400 27. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same and submits that as per the statement of the prosecutrix, the accused appellants met them with Sukhram. From the statement of prosecution witnesses and the material on record, it is evident that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment passed by the Trial Court is based on well and sound reasoning and thus, no interference is required by this Court. 28. Heard. Considered. 29. Prosecution has examined eighteen-witnesses, whereas accused-appellants have not examined any witness in defence. 30. PW-6 Lalluram Meena and PW-7 Rampratap deposed about Exhibit-P/4 memo of site-plan. PW-11 Vijaypal deposed about Exhibit-P/22 F.S.L. Receipt. PW-13 Rajendra Singh, A.S.I. deposed about recording of Police statement of witnesses Ramesh Chand and Kamli Devi. PW-14 Dr. G.P. Meena deposed about Exhibit-P/23 & Exhibit-P/24 Health Examination Reports of accused Badri Prasad and Dhara Singh. PW-15 Raman Lal, Head Constable deposed about Exhibit-P/25-A certified copy of Malkhana Register. Thus, all above mentioned six prosecution witnesses are formal witness. 31. PW-8 Banwari Lal Gupta, Head Master, Upper Primary School, Tilwadi deposed about Exhibit-P/16-A photocopy of Transfer Certificate of M.B., Exhibit-P/17-A photocopy of application for admission in School of M.B., Exhibit-P/18-A photocopy of T.C. of M.B., Exhibit-P/19-A photocopy of T.C. of T.B., Exhibit-P/20-A photocopy of application for admission in School of TB and Exhibit-P/21-A photocopy of T.C. of TB. It is revealed from perusal of above Exhibit-P/16-A to Exhibit-P/21-A that the date-of-birth of victim M.B. is 10.01.1994 and victim T.B. is 15.06.1997. 32. PW-4 Dr. B.L. Meena and PW-12 Dr. Ravi Mathur deposed about Exhibit-P/2 & P/3 Medical Report of M.B. as also Exhibit-P/22 Radiological Report of M.B. respectively. As per Exhibit-P/3 Medical Report dated 17.08.2012, M.B. was aged about 18 years and as per Exhibit-P/22 Radiological Report of M.B. dated 18.08.2012, M.B. was about 18 years of age. 32. PW-4 Dr. B.L. Meena and PW-12 Dr. Ravi Mathur deposed about Exhibit-P/2 & P/3 Medical Report of M.B. as also Exhibit-P/22 Radiological Report of M.B. respectively. As per Exhibit-P/3 Medical Report dated 17.08.2012, M.B. was aged about 18 years and as per Exhibit-P/22 Radiological Report of M.B. dated 18.08.2012, M.B. was about 18 years of age. Thus, victim M.B. was major at the time of alleged incident. 33. Submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-appellants is that as per the statement of PW-1 M.B., her date-of-birth is 10.01.1994 and thus, she was eighteen-years of age. This fact is well established from the report of Radiologist of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Alwar vide Exhibit-P/22. It is true that earlier appreciation of evidence of PW-8 Banwari Lal Head Master and Exhibit-P/16-A to Exhibit-P/18-A, the date-of-birth of M.B. is 10.01.1994. As per evidence of PW-4 Dr. B.L. Meena, PW-12 Dr. Ravi Mathur and Exhibit-P/22 Radiologist Report dated 18.08.2012, the age of M.B. is about 18-years. As per complaint (Exhibit-P/27) filed by M.B. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, written report (Exhibit-D/1) and F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/26) lodged by complainant-Ramesh Chand Meena and charges framed, the accused-appellants continuously committed the alleged offence with the victims for period of two-three years prior to the date of incident i.e. 04.07.2012. Hence, the victim M.B. was minor during the period of alleged incident. 34. PW-10 Rameshwar is a hostile witness, who deposed about Exhibit-P/6 and Exhibit-P/7 arrest memos of accused Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad, Exhibit-P/8 and Exhibit-P/9 seizure memos of underwears of accused Badri Prasad and Dhara Singh, Exhibit-P/10 and Exhibit-P/11 mobile phones with SIM of accused Badri Prasad and Dhara Singh, Exhibit-P/12 and Exhibit-P/13 verification of site and site-plan at instance of Badri Prasad and Exhibit-P/14 & Exhibit-P/15 verification of site-plan at the instance of accused Dhara Singh respectively. 35. PW-18 Mustafa Ali Jaidi, Investigating Officer deposed about the aforesaid exhibits and information of accused Badri Prasad and Dhara Singh under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act vide Exhibit-P/29, 30, 31 and 32 respectively. In his statement, it was admitted by him that video-clips were not recovered in pursuance of information furnished by the accused appellants vide Exhibit-P/31 and Exhibit-P/32. 36. In his statement, it was admitted by him that video-clips were not recovered in pursuance of information furnished by the accused appellants vide Exhibit-P/31 and Exhibit-P/32. 36. Looking to the aforesaid evidence and the fact that during the course of trial, the alleged seized articles were neither marked as Articles nor F.S.L. report was submitted and marked as Exhibits, the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid recoveries, verification of site and site-plan memos and also failed to recover the alleged video-clips. 37. Victim PW-2 T.B. has not supported the prosecution story in her cross-examination. She admitted in her cross-examination that she had not got recorded the facts in Ex.-P/5, as recorded in examination-in-chief, when C to D Part of Exhibit-P/5 (statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C) ^^ges ----------------le>rs FksA^^ (In their class two teachers Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad Meena used to teach them. Behaviour of both the teachers were good with all of them. Both the teachers used to treat her and her sister as children), was read over to her. When E to F Part ^^;s u rks -----------------------vigj.k ugha fd;kA (They neither called them on holidays for preparing tea nor did anything wrong with them. Both the teachers never gave them any mobile phone and SIM. Her father lodged a false case against them and her elder sister M.B. gave false statement against the teachers. Why did M.B. do it, she could not tell. Both the teachers neither committed any wrong act nor kidnapped or raped her and her elder sister), was read over to her, she admitted that it was stated by her. Likewise, when K to L Part of Exhibit-P/5 (statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C.) ^^eS viuh bPNk ------------ euxढ+r djok;k x;k gSA^^ (She eloped with one Sukhram. Neither both the teachers Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad nor Sukhram had any fault. Her father had lodged concocted case), was read over to her, she admitted that it was got correctly written. 38. Another victim PW-1 M.B. deposed in her examination-in-chief that “she was studying in 8th Class at Government Upper Primary School, Tilwadi. Her sister T.B. was also studying with her. In their school, there were two teachers, namely Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad. After school hours, both teachers used to stop them for making tea. They were asked to go to the kitchen to make tea. Her sister T.B. was also studying with her. In their school, there were two teachers, namely Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad. After school hours, both teachers used to stop them for making tea. They were asked to go to the kitchen to make tea. Thereafter, both the teachers used to come from behind and closed the door of the kitchen and committed wrong acts with them. Both the teachers used to takeoff their clothes, press their chest and bite on their cheeks. Here wrong act means rape. Wrong act was being continuously committed from class 8th upto May, 2012. While committing the said act, mobile clips were made. She gave her statement vide Exhibit-P/1 (u/s.164 Cr.P.C.) before the Magistrate, where A to B is her signature. Her medical examination report is Exhibit-P/2, where A to B is her signature. Exhibit-P/3 is medical report regarding her age, where A to B is her signature. Police prepared site-plan vide memo Exhibit-P/4, where A to B is her signature. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she narrated the entire incident to her uncle, Lallu Ram. She further admitted that her uncle disclosed about that incident to her father. 39. PW-4 Dr. B.L. Meena deposed in his statement about Exhibit-P/2 and Exhibit-P/3, the report of M.B. PW-16 Dr. Kanchan Batra (Lady Doctor) deposed that she examined M.B. with regard to rape. Medical examination report is Exhibit-P/2, where E to F is her signature. Further, she admitted that no signs of injuries were found on the body and breast of victim M.B. 40. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not give any opinion whether the sexual act was committed with victim M.B. or not. 41. PW-3 Ramesh Chandra Meena and PW-5 Kamli are the parents of the victims T.B. and M.B. and both are the hearsay witnesses. In cross-examination of PW-3 Ramesh Chandra Meena, when Exhibit-D/1 written-report was read over to him, he replied A to B Part of examination-in-chief ^^/kkjkflag vkSj cnzh ekLVj us ----- rqedks [kRe dj nsaxsA^^ (Having threatened, Dhara Singh and Badri Prasad gave us mobile and told to chat with them. If we kept the mobile phone switched off, they would fail us. They used to commit wrong act with us in school. Wrong act means rape. They threatened to finish us if we tell any one about it) was not got written by him. If we kept the mobile phone switched off, they would fail us. They used to commit wrong act with us in school. Wrong act means rape. They threatened to finish us if we tell any one about it) was not got written by him. He further admitted that while giving the police statement, he had not got written A to B part of examination-in-chief. He stated that the report (Exhibit-D/1) was lodged against the accused and F.I.R. is Exhibit-P/26. 42. PW-5 Kamli in her cross-examination stated that at the time of giving police station (Ex.-D/9), she got recorded that clothes of both of her daughters were removed and they were raped. After school hours, both the teachers used to commit wrong act in the kitchen and room of School and threatened the victims, but none of these were mentioned in her Police statement (Exhibit-D/9). 43. PW-9 Kesari Devi (Incharge of Kitchen) who in her statement categorically stated that no such incident took place before her with M.B. and T.B. She had not heard anything. In her cross-examination, she stated that the key of the kitchen had remained with her. She further stated that after serving Poshahar (Nutrition) to the children, she used to go to her house after putting a lock on kitchen door. She further stated that the keys of the School remained with the Head Master. She admitted that after School hours, the Head Master used to close the School in her presence and take away the key with him and the accused-appellants did not have any key of the School, Kitchen and Store. 44. PW-17 Bhagwan Sahai, S.H.O. deposed that Tehrir Report is Exhibit-D/1, F.I.R. is Exhibit-P/26 and Complaint is Exhibit-P/27. 45. PW-18 Mustafa Ali Jaidi, Investigating Officer deposed that he was posted as CO. Rajgarh on 08.09.2012 and investigated the case. He admitted in his statement that he recorded the statement of T.B. under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein victim T.B. categorically stated that neither the accused-appellants gave any mobile phone to her nor anything wrong was done with her. He further admitted that T.B. stated in her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate that both the teachers used to treat her and her sister as children, they neither called them on holidays for preparing tea nor did anything wrong with them. Both of the teachers never gave them any mobile phone. He further admitted that T.B. stated in her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate that both the teachers used to treat her and her sister as children, they neither called them on holidays for preparing tea nor did anything wrong with them. Both of the teachers never gave them any mobile phone. Her father lodged a false case against them and her elder sister M.B. was giving false statement against the teachers. He further admitted in his statement that the place of incident was inspected by him and no marks of rape, alleged to have been committed with the victims, were found there and no video-clip was recovered by him. 46. PW-8 Banwari Lal, Head Master, Upper Primary School, Tilwadi admitted in his cross-examination that accused Badri Prasad and Dhara Singh were his subordinate staff. Parents of T.B. and M.B. had not filed any complaint before him with regard to harassment and forceful confinement after school hours. 47. From the above appreciation of evidence, it is clear that in the present case, there are two victims PW-1 M.B. and PW-2 T.B. As per the order-sheets of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 165/2012 (Exhibit-D/4 to Exhibit-D/7), T.B. was recovered and produced before the Court on 07.01.2013. However, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed to lodge T.B. in the Balika-Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and adjourned the matter to 15.01.2013. Thereafter, in light of the fact that she was minor, as per her School Certificate and was not inclined to go with her father, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 15.01.2013 again directed that T.B. would remain in the Balika-Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and adjourned the matter to 21.01.2013. On 21.01.2013, victim T.B. was produced before the Court and sent to the Balika-Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. Neither on 07.01.2013 nor on 15.01.2013 and nor on 21.01.2013, she had deposed against the accused-appellants. As per order-sheet dated 06.02.2013 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Hebeas Corpus Petition No. 165/2012, victim T.B. wanted to go with Sukhram, but keeping in view her age (minor), the Court, handed-over the custody of victim T.B. to her parents in light of the fact that matter was being reconciled on the condition that the Police Authority may not take any stringent action against Sukhram. Victim T.B. at the time of recording her statement as PW-2, first time, disclosed before the trial Court with regard to the alleged incident, whereas nothing was stated by her in this regard during the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even when she was produced before this Court in D.B. Hebeas Corpus Petition No. 165/2012. PW-2 T.B. (victim) also does not corroborate the prosecution story in her cross-examination. In this way, her statement cannot be relied upon. 48. So far as PW-1 M.B. (victim) is concerned, her statement is also not reliable. PW-1 M.B. had narrated about the entire incident to her uncle and he further informed about the incident to her father, but the incident regarding rape was missing from the report. The statement of PW-1 M.B. is not corroborated with the medical report (Exhibit-P/2). As per statement of PW-16 Dr. Kanchan Batra, there were no injury marks on the body and breast of M.B. The statement of PW-1 M.B. is also not corroborated with the statements of her own sister, who is eyewitness PW-2 T.B. and PW-18 Mustafa Ali Jaidi, Investigating Officer. 49. As per prosecution case, the alleged incident took place in the kitchen after school hours, whereas PW-9 Kesari Devi (Incharge of kitchen) does not support the prosecution case and stated that no such incident took place before her with the victims. In her cross-examination, she stated that the key of the kitchen had remained with her and after serving Poshahar (Nutrition) to the children, she used to go to the house after putting a lock on kitchen door. 50. PW-18 Mustafa Ali Jaidi, Investigating Officer admitted that no video-clip was recovered by him and the prosecution has also failed to prove other alleged recoveries. 51. PW-8 Banwari Lal Gupta, Head Master also does not support the prosecution story in his cross-examination. 52. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the cross-examination of the victim, Investigating Officer and other aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 53. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled by them and also failed to establish the guilt against the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. by giving them the benefit of doubt. 54. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Therefore, the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. by giving them the benefit of doubt. 54. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Alwar is quashed and set aside. Appellants Badri Prasad Meena and late Dhara Singh are acquitted of the charge under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. The appellant Badri Prasad Meena, who is in custody, is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 55. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant, namely Badri Prasad Meena s/o Dabluram, and Abhishek Meena s/o accused-appellant Late Dhara Singh are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and surety bond in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six-months with the stipulation that in the event of filing Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave to appeal, the accused-appellant Badri Prasad Meena s/o Dabluram, and Abhishek Meena s/o accused-appellant Late Dhara Singh on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.