JUDGMENT : Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.PC, lays challenge to Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2010 & 30.04.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur Camp at Bilaspur, in Sessions Case No. 6-7 of 2009, whereby court below while holding the appellant/accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as ‘convict’), guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 06.03.2007, at about 3.00 P.M., PW-8, complainant Kalan Devi, after having heard cries of her grand-daughter, i.e. victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) went to her and inquired as to why she was weeping. Allegedly, victim/prosecutrix disclosed to the complainant that her uncle accused Rakesh caught hold of her hand and took her to his room and removed her pyjama by saying that he would take out a child from her stomach. Complainant also alleged that victim/prosecutrix also disclosed her that accused put off his pant and put his penis on her private part and also inserted his fingers into her vagina, as a result of which, she felt pain and started weeping. Complainant alleged that at the time of occurrence, her son was not present, whereas, her daughter-in-law, Roshani Devi, PW-2, was present in the cowshed. She alleged that she called Up Pradhan, Sh. Madan Lal, PW-6 and Ward Member, Khillo Devi, PW-9, before whom, her grand-daughter narrated the entire story. She alleged that thereafter, they reported the matter to the police and on the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 38/2007, Ext. PW-1/A, under Sections 376/511 of IPC, came to be registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, which after having found prima facie case under Sections 376/511 of IPC, framed charges against the accused under aforesaid Sections, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 16 witnesses, whereas, despite opportunity, accused failed to lead any defence evidence, however, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. 4. 3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 16 witnesses, whereas, despite opportunity, accused failed to lead any defence evidence, however, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. 4. Learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 29.04.2010, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description given hereinabove. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by court below. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the statements of prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, representing the accused that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, findings to the detriment of the accused has come to the fore. No doubt, in the case at hand, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses in all, but statements made by witnesses namely, PW-1, Ram Chand, PW-2, Roshani Devi, PW-5, Nisha Devi, PW-6, Madan Lal, PW-7, victim/prosecutrix, PW-8, Kalan Devi, PW-9, Khillo Devi and PW-15, Dr. Anupum Sharma, are material to ascertain the guilt, if any, of the accused, whereas, remaining witnesses namely PW-3, Manohar Lal, PW-10, LC Reeta Devi, PW-11, C. Anil Kumar, PW-12, Sh. Manoj Kumar, PW-13, ASI Shamsher Singh, PW-14 HHC Kashmir and PW-16 SI Sohan Lal are formal witnesses. 6. If the statement of PW-15, Dr. Anupum Sharma is read in its entirety vis-à-vis medical opinion rendered by her in MLC Ext. PW-15/A, this Court finds that she opined that there is evidence of attempt of penetration in vagina with finger or foreign object, but no evidence of penile penetration was found. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the abrasion found on the vaginal area of the patient could be self inflicted or caused with friendly hands. PW-15/A, this Court finds that she opined that there is evidence of attempt of penetration in vagina with finger or foreign object, but no evidence of penile penetration was found. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the abrasion found on the vaginal area of the patient could be self inflicted or caused with friendly hands. PW-8, Kalan Devi, grandmother of the victim/prosecutrix, deposed that on 6.3.2007, at 3.00 P.M., while she was cleaning her house, she heard cries of a child and when she looked out, she found that her grand-daughter Sapna was crying. She deposed that she rushed to her grand-daughter and on inquiry, it was disclosed that accused Rakesh took her to his house and removed her salwar and also put off his pyjama and thereafter tried to put his male organ into her vagina and when he failed, then he inserted his fingers into her vagina saying that he wanted to take out child from her stomach. She alleged that her grand-daughter told her that when she cried due to pain, accused lifted her and dropped her outside the house. She further deposed that at that time, her daughter-in-law, was feeding the cattle in the cowshed, whereas, her son was out of house for his work. She deposed that immediately, she visited Ward Member Khillo Devi, PW-8 and informed her about this occurrence and thereafter, she alongwith PW-6, Madan, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Sunihra, visited her house and entire story was narrated to them by her grand-daughter. She also deposed that accused confessed his guilt before the above-named persons. She deposed that PW-5, Madan Lal, told PW-9 Khillo Devi, to check her grand-daughter, who after checking her asked her to report the matter to the police. In her cross-examination, she admitted that accused person has been adopted by Sh. Painu Ram, who is elder brother of her husband and is issueless. She denied that since Sh. Painu Ram had adopted the accused, they are not in cordial relations with him and the accused person. She also denied that accused person has been falsely implicated by them due to enmity. PW-5, Nisha Devi, sister-in-law of the accused, deposed that when prosecutrix came out of the house of the accused, she was present on the spot and prosecutrix had narrated the incident to her grand-mother in her presence. She also denied that accused person has been falsely implicated by them due to enmity. PW-5, Nisha Devi, sister-in-law of the accused, deposed that when prosecutrix came out of the house of the accused, she was present on the spot and prosecutrix had narrated the incident to her grand-mother in her presence. Since, this witness did not support the case of the prosecution and denied that prosecutrix had narrated this incident to her grand-mother in her presence, she was declared hostile. Even, in her cross-examination, prosecution was not able to extract something contrary to what this witness stated in her examination-in-chief. She admitted that on 6.3.2008, in the afternoon she was present in her house and after having heard cries of the prosecutrix, her grand-mother Kalan Devi, came out of her house and then she asked Sapana as to what had happened, but she denied the remaining suggestion with regard to disclosure, if any, made by victim/prosecutrix in her presence. PW-1, Ram Chand, father of the prosecutrix,, corroborated the version put-forth by the complainant PW- 8, Kalan Devi that accused took his daughter to his house and after undressing her, tried to put his penis in the vagina of his daughter and accused also tried to put his finger in her vagina. He also deposed that when he inquired from his daughter, she also narrated entire story to him. He also stated that he alongwith his mother visited the police station and lodged FIR Ext. PW-1/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that accused is son of Sh. Garibu, who is his uncle. He also admitted that Painu Ram alias Tehnu had adopted the accused because he is issueless. He denied that he alongwith his mother were pressing Painu Ram alias Tehnu Ram to distribute his property amongst all in the equal proportions. 7. PW-2, Roshani Devi, mother of the victim/prosecutrix also supported the version of the complainant PW-8 Kalan Devi that at the time of alleged incident, she was working in cowshed. She deposed that on 6.3.2007, she heard cries of her daughter while she was working in the cowshed. She deposed that when she asked her daughter as to what had happened, she told her that accused took her to his house and after undressing himself and her, tried to commit rape on her. She deposed that there was redness and swelling on the private part of her daughter. She deposed that when she asked her daughter as to what had happened, she told her that accused took her to his house and after undressing himself and her, tried to commit rape on her. She deposed that there was redness and swelling on the private part of her daughter. She denied that her daughter sustained injuries while playing or her mother-in-law caused the same in order to take revenge from the accused. PW-6, Madan Lal, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Sunihra, deposed that in the month of March, 2007, Kallan Devi, came to his shop and told him that accused had teased her grand-daughter and thereafter, he went to her house, where the prosecutrix was playing. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had visited the house of Kalan Devi on the same day, when she came to him. He admitted that when he visited the house of Kalan Devi, Ward Member Khillo was also present there. He denied that prosecutrix had narrated the entire incident to him and Khillo Devi. He also denied that on inquiry, accused confessed his guilt before him. 8. PW-7, victim/prosecutrix deposed that about three years back, the accused, who is her uncle took her to his room from the courtyard where she was playing and told her that he would give her toffee. She deposed that accused removed her pyjama and also took off his pyjama and told her that he would take out child from the stomach. She deposed that accused inserted his fingers into her vagina and when she started crying, he sent her outside the room from where, her grand-mother lifted her. He also deposed that besides this, accused did not do anything. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she was accompanied to the Court by her grand-mother. She also admitted that her grand-mother had told her about the statement, which was to be recorded in the Court. She also admitted that she had made statement, which her grand-mother had told her. She however, denied that her grand-mother had also inserted finger in her vagina. 9. If the entire evidence led on record by the prosecution is read in its entirety, it clearly emerges that all the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. She also admitted that she had made statement, which her grand-mother had told her. She however, denied that her grand-mother had also inserted finger in her vagina. 9. If the entire evidence led on record by the prosecution is read in its entirety, it clearly emerges that all the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Though, PW-7, victim/prosecutrix , PW-8, Kalan Devi, PW-1, Ram Chand and PW-2, Roshani, supported the case of the prosecution, but their version cannot be accepted as gospel truth being interested witnesses, especially when some of independent witnesses associated by the prosecution not supported their version. If the statements made by PW-5,PW-6 & PW-9, are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other, it clearly emerges that though these witnesses visited the house of the victim/prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident, but victim/prosecutrix not narrated the alleged incident to aforesaid witnesses. Similarly, these witnesses, have not supported the versions of complainant PW-8 Kallan Devi, that PW-6, Madan Lal, Pradhan told PW-9 Khillo Devi, Ward Member to examine private parts of the victim/prosecutrix and she found that there was redness and swelling, rather these witnesses categorically denied the aforesaid version and as such, they were declared hostile. If the cross-examination conducted upon these witnesses is read in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that prosecution was able to extract something contrary to what these witnesses stated in their examinations-in-chief. No doubt, statements made by closely related witnesses, cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of their relations, rather such can be taken into consideration while proving the guilt, if any, of the accused, if there is corroboration and there are no major inconsistencies and contradictions by the witnesses. 10. Interestingly, in the case at hand, PW-7, victim/prosecutrix admitted in her cross-examination that she was accompanied to the Court by her grand-mother. She also admitted that her grand-mother told her about the statement, which was to be recorded in the Court. Most importantly, this witness admitted that she made statement, as was told to her by her grand-mother. At this stage, Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General argued that since at the time of alleged incident, victim/prosecutrix was 5 years old and she had come to depose after four years, mere reminding of facts, if any, by her grand-mother PW-8 Kalan Devi, cannot be said to be tutoring. At this stage, Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General argued that since at the time of alleged incident, victim/prosecutrix was 5 years old and she had come to depose after four years, mere reminding of facts, if any, by her grand-mother PW-8 Kalan Devi, cannot be said to be tutoring. While making this Court peruse the statement of this witness made in examination-in-chief vis-a-vis crossexamination conducted by learned counsel representing the accused, Mr. Guleria, further argued that at no point of time, factum with regard to claim of the petitioner that she was undressed by the accused, ever came to be refuted. He deposed that since claim of the victim/prosecutrix that accused after having taken her to his room, undressed her and thereafter made an attempt to penetrate his male organ, was never contradicted in cross-examination, it remained unrebutted and as such, sole testimony of victim/prosecutrix is sufficient to hold accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 11. No doubt, if statement made in examination-in-chief, is not contradicted through cross-examination, same is to be treated as an admitted fact, but since, in the instant case, victim/prosecutrix while answering the first question in cross-examination categorically admitted that she made the statement in the Court what she was told by her grand-mother, probably there was no reason, if any, for the learned counsel representing the accused to put each and every question for contradiction and denial. Admission made on behalf of the victim/prosecutrix in the cross-examination that she was given to understand what to speak in the Court by her grand-mother, PW-8, Kalan Devi, has rendered the entire story of prosecution doubtful. Version putforth by the victim/prosecutrix cannot be said to be her own volition, rather that is necessarily required to be termed as tutored statement. Leaving everything aside, none of the independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution, which fact itself creates serious doubt with regard to correctness of the prosecution story as well as statements made by PW-1, PW-2 & PW-7. If the crossexamination conducted upon victim/prosecutrix is read in its entirety, it clearly emerges that at the time of alleged incident, another sister of the victim/prosecutrix as well as one friend Disha, were also present on the spot, but interestingly, none of them, have been cited as prosecution witnesses. If the crossexamination conducted upon victim/prosecutrix is read in its entirety, it clearly emerges that at the time of alleged incident, another sister of the victim/prosecutrix as well as one friend Disha, were also present on the spot, but interestingly, none of them, have been cited as prosecution witnesses. Both the above-named persons could be best persons to depose with regard to factum, if any, of accused having taken victim/prosecutrix to his room and thereafter cries, if any, made by victim/prosecutrix. Moreover, victim/prosecutrix nowhere stated/deposed that accused after having undressed her, tried to put his male organ in her vagina, but interestingly, PW-8, Kalan Devi, complainant as well as PW-2 Roshni Devi and PW-1, Ram Chand, deposed that victim/prosecutrix after the alleged incident, disclosed them that accused after having undressed her, made an attempt to penetrate his male organ in her vagina. PW-8, Kalan Devi, PW-1, Ram Chand and PW-2 Roshani Devi, grand-mother, father and mother of the victim/prosecutrix admitted in their cross-examination that Painu Ram alias Tehnu was issueless and he adopted the accused. PW-8, Kalan Devi, complainant in her cross-examination admitted that had Painu Ram alias Tehnu not adopted the accused, his property would have been devolved upon her husband and son. Aforesaid admission made on behalf of PW-8, Kalan Devi, certainly indicates towards motive to falsely implicate the accused. No doubt, medical evidence adduced on record, i.e. MLC Ext. PW-15/C, reveals that doctor attending upon victim/prosecutrix, opined that there was evidence of attempt of penetration in vagina with finger or foreign object, but PW- 15, Dr. Anupum Sharma, categorically stated that abrasion found on the vaginal area of the patient could be self inflicted or caused with friendly hands Aforesaid opinion rendered by PW-15, Dr. Anupum Sharma, gains significance on account of statement made by PW-7, victim/prosecutrix that while coming out of the room of the accused, she fell down and was lifted by her grand-mother and as such, possibility of having suffered injury on account of fall, cannot be ruled out. 12. After having read statements made by prosecution witnesses in conjunction juxtaposing each other, this Court finds sufficient force in the submissions made by Mr. 12. After having read statements made by prosecution witnesses in conjunction juxtaposing each other, this Court finds sufficient force in the submissions made by Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant/convict that there are lot of contradictions and inconsistencies and as such, no much reliance could have been placed on the same by the court below while ascertaining the guilt, if any, of the convict. 13. Reliance is placed on Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC 645 , wherein it has been held as under:- “45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14) "14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy. The probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation." 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that "no man is guilty until proven so", hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses.” 14. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present appeal and accordingly same is allowed. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2010 & 30.04.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur Camp at Bilaspur, in Sessions Case No. 6-7 of 2009, are quashed and set aside. Appellant-convict is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Fine amount, if any deposited by the appellant, be refunded to him. Appellant-convict is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Fine amount, if any deposited by the appellant, be refunded to him. Appeal is disposed of in above-terms, so also pending applications, if any.