JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. When the matter was listed and heard yesterday i.e. 11.05.2022, Mr. Ashok Kumar Panwar, who appeared as Amicus Curiae, made detailed submissions. 2. After hearing the submissions and perusing the record of the case, this Court passed the following order, yesterday i.e. 11.05.2022: “In the result, the appeal is allowed (see separate judgment).” 3. Thereafter, yesterday itself, upon retiring in the Chamber, the judgment was dictated to the concerned stenographer, but due to a bona-fide mistake, this Court went on to give dictation on merits, without considering an important element of the prosecutrix having been taken away from a hut at Jagat Road, even when the hut was occupied by the prosecutrix, alongwith other co-occupants, namely, Hanja Ram, Nana Ram, Shanti Lal and Laxmi. 3.1 Upon missing such an element, this Court passed the judgment of dismissal of the appeal; upon the judgment being signed yesterday, the stenographer was directed to upload the same and the judgment was accordingly uploaded, yesterday itself. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashok Kumar however, brought to notice of the Court Master today i.e. 12.05.2022 that the essential part of the facts has been missed in the concluding part of the judgment and the result of the appeal pronounced in the open Court has been mistakenly reversed. 5. Since the complete chain of events is of yesterday, therefore, this Court has a clear recollection of the chain of events, and immediately realized that due to a bona-fide mistake, the proposition of allowing the appeal did not turn into the consequential judgment, but instead, the elementary fact of the incident having been initiated in the presence of four other cohabitants of the hut remained missing, which was the reason for this Court to arrive at the conclusion of acquittal at the time of pronouncing the result of the appeal in the open Court yesterday i.e. 11.05.2022. 6. Releasing the mistake, today itself, this Court immediately directed the Court Master to stop the office from issuing certified copies of the judgment, as well as to delete the uploaded judgment dated 11.05.2022 from the official web portal of this Hon’ble Court, which was deleted accordingly; the Court Master was also directed to get the matter listed in the category “To be mentioned” for dictation today itself and the same is being listed before this Court today. 7. 7. To undo the bona-fide mistake, the judgment passed by this Court in the present case, yesterday i.e. 11.05.2022, is substituted by the following: “1. This criminal jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 93/93, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC; for the offence under Section 366 IPC, each of the accused-appellants were ordered to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further one month’s imprisonment and; for the offence under Section 376 IPC, each of the accused-appellants were ordered to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further two months imprisonment; both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that on 26.03.1993 at about 03:00 p.m. one Sita Bai (complainant/prosecutrix) lodged a report before the Police Station, Kurabad, District Udaipur to the effect that after Holi festival, prior to 6-7 days of lodging the report, while she departed from her village, accompanying one Hanjaram and reached to Kotda Mamdev, near Jagat Road to work as a labourer; where she worked for about five days, and one day prior to the lodging of the report at about 5:00 p.m. she returned to her hut at Jagat Road, where she was staying with Hanja Ram, Nana Ram, Shanti Lal and Laxmi and after having her meal, the prosecutrix went to sleep. It was further reported that in the night, the accused-appellants alongwith one Mohan Rawat came to the hut and awakened the prosecutrix, and that they dragged her away from the hut; thereafter, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused-appellants; and that at about 9:00 p.m. she was dropped by the accused-appellants back to her hut. The whole incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to Laxmi and other companions, and thereafter, the report was lodged before the police station, as above. The whole incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to Laxmi and other companions, and thereafter, the report was lodged before the police station, as above. 2.1 On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered against the accused-respondents for the aforementioned offences and after due and thorough investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, before the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur; the case upon being committed for trial was sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur (‘trial court’) for the necessary adjudication and trial, whereafter, upon due trial, the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that as is apparent on the face of the record, the prosecutrix and her other companions were working as labourers through the Contractor, Kurichand, and though the present accused-appellants were also working under the same contractor, the accused-appellants were later on ousted from the labour work, on count of some money dispute, which resulted into animosity between the said contractor and the accused-appellants; thus, at the instance and instigation of the contractor, the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused-appellants in this case. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that even if the version of the prosecutrix is to be believed, then also, by no stretch of imagination, can it be presumed that while the prosecutrix was dragged out of her hut by the accused-appellants, her companions would not awaken, following the alarm, if any, raised by the prosecutrix at that time. Thus, as per learned counsel, in absence thereof, the version of the prosecutrix and the prosecution story is clearly under a shadow of doubt; hence, even if any sexual intercourse took place, the same was out of consensual relationship between the parties. 3.2 Learned counsel also submits that as per the version of the prosecution, during the alleged rape, her apparels were torn and her bangles were broken, but the same were not produced in evidence, so as to prove such version beyond doubt. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution, the age of the prosecutrix, at the relevant time was 16-17 years; however, as per her cross-examination, her age was found the 18/19 years; such inconsistency, makes the prosecution story all the more doubtful. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution, the age of the prosecutrix, at the relevant time was 16-17 years; however, as per her cross-examination, her age was found the 18/19 years; such inconsistency, makes the prosecution story all the more doubtful. 3.4 Learned counsel however, submits that vide order dated 02.05.1994 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants vide the impugned judgment, was suspended, and thus, they are on bail. 3.5 Learned counsel thus, submits that in the aforesaid backdrop, the learned trial court ought to have acquitted the accused-appellants from all the charges levelled against them; but the learned trial court, without due appreciation of the evidence placed on record before it and without taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the accused-appellants, which is not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court, more particularly, when the necessary element of corroboration, so as to connect the accused-appellant with the alleged crime in question, is clearly not there in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant, submits that not even an iota of inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was proved before the learned trial court, and thus, the testimony so rendered being clear and consistent, was sufficient so as to convict the accused-appellants for the alleged offences. Furthermore, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, medical evidence, amongst others, clearly connect the present accused-appellants with the alleged crime in question, and thus, the necessary element of corroboration is very much present and proved in this case. 4.1 Moreover, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of commission of the crime in question, was only between 16-17 years, which is also apparent on the face of record. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor the culprits (accused-appellants) of the crime in question, more particularly, subjecting a young girl of that age, to the gruesome offence of rape, were required to be punished with severe punishment, and hence, the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide the impugned judgment. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor the culprits (accused-appellants) of the crime in question, more particularly, subjecting a young girl of that age, to the gruesome offence of rape, were required to be punished with severe punishment, and hence, the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide the impugned judgment. 4.2 Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that the submission made on behalf of the accused-appellants that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment, without due appreciation of the evidence placed on record before it and lacks consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, does not merit acceptance. 4.3 Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, submits that the attempt on the part of the accused-appellants to make out a case of false implication, owing to the animosity between the aforementioned contractor and the present accused-appellants, was set at naught by the learned trial court with cogent reasoning, and rightly so. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the very fact of the prosecutrix residing in a single hutment with Hanja Ram, Nana Ram, Shanti Lal and Laxmi, casts a serious doubt upon the initiation of the allegation, where it is alleged the prosecutrix was taken away from the hutment by forcefully dragging her, without any hue and cry having been raised by the prosecutrix, despite presence of the other hutment dwellers. The dragging incident does not find corroboration in the medical evidence also. The FSL Report (Ex.P.10) also did not indicate detection of semen. 6. This Court also finds that in case, any such fact which is a missing link, then the same would certainly point towards a consensual relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused-appellants. The inconsistency in the age of the prosecutrix, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, also creates a shadow of doubt in the narration of events, particularly the single hutment and the contradictions amongst the testimony of inhabitants of the hutment. 7. This Court is also conscious of the fact that two of the essential witnesses, namely, Laxmi and Shanti Lal, who were present in the hutment, were not examined before the learned trial court and the crucial witness PW-6 Nana Lal turned hostile. 7. This Court is also conscious of the fact that two of the essential witnesses, namely, Laxmi and Shanti Lal, who were present in the hutment, were not examined before the learned trial court and the crucial witness PW-6 Nana Lal turned hostile. The very pertinent fact is that the victim herself has deposed that in the morning she returned back voluntarily by herself. 8. The aforesaid backdrop creates a deep suspicion in the prosecution version and thus, the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused-appellant. 9. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants as recorded vide the impugned judgment dated 08.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 93/93 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail; they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.”