JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.301 of 2011 dated 05.03.2013 on the file of Mahila Court, Chennai.) 1. This appeal against conviction for offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months S.I. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 28.01.2010, at about 10.30 a.m., the appellant herein called P.W.1 to his house and had forcibly intercourse with her. P.W.4, who is the sister of P.W.1 came in search of her sister and enquired the appellant. P.W.4 noticed the appellant found perturbed and disturbed. She saw her sister P.W.1 inside the accused house in disorderliness. P.W.1 informed that, she was raped by the appellant. Immediately, P.W.4 called her mother (P.W.2) and thereafter, along with her cousin (P.W.3) went to the police station and gave complaint (Ex.P.1). The police took up the investigation, arrested the appellant on the same day. The wearing dress of the victim and the accused were collected and same were sent for Forensic lab for test. Both the P.W.1 and the appellant were sent for medical examination. 3. After completion of investigation, final report was filed for offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. 4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 17 Exhibits, 2 Material Objects were also marked. 5. Aggrieved by the Judgement of conviction and sentence, the appeal is filed on the ground that the Court below failed to take note of the contradictions and falsehood in the evidence relied by the prosecution. It is submitted by the Learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1, the victim girl or her sister (P.W.4), who alleged to have seen the accused and her sister together in her house of the accused had not said anything about the forcible confinement of P.W.1 in the house and her hands were tied by the appellant. For the first time, P.W.1, in the cross examination had deposed that, the appellant tied her hands and legs, whereas, in the complaint as well as the chief examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4, there is no whisper about this incident. In the complaint, it is stated that, P.W.4 went to the house of the appellant on hearing the weeping sound, the complaint was given by P.W.2, the mother of the victim. In the complaint, it is stated that, P.W.4 went to the house of the appellant on hearing the weeping sound, the complaint was given by P.W.2, the mother of the victim. She came to the house after P.W.4 informed about the occurrence. Whereas, P.W.4, in her chief examination had said that when she saw her sister inside the house of the accused, her sister was found disorderliness and she enquired her sister, she informed that the accused raped her. 6. P.W.1 the victim girl, in the chief examination had deposed that when she went to the ration shop, the accused gagged her mouth and took her inside his house and had intercourse with her. The embellishment and improvement in the evidence had come out during the cross examination and the contradictions being very obvious which clearly creates doubt about the veracity of the evidence. 7. According to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, appellant and P.W.1 are major and it was consensual sex voluntarily. They had intercourse only when the appellant mother did not agreed for their marriage, false complaint was given to the respondent police. Further, the Learned Counsel submitted that the discrepancy in the colour of the garments (panties) of P.W.1 not explained by the witnesses for the prosecution. Being very crucial evidence, the discrepancy in the colour of the panties, makes the case of the prosecution unbelievable. 8. The admission by P.W.3 and P.W.4 that P.W.1 earlier got conceived and later got aborted, not taken note by the trial Court to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 376 of I.P.C. 9. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that the victim girl has narrated that she was subjected to intercourse against her wish and by force. When P.W.4, the sister of the victim girl came to the house of the accused, she found P.W.1 in disorderliness position. In case of this nature, the evidence of victim girl is more crucial and she had deposed that she was forcibly raped against her consent. The medical evidence indicates that she is accustom to sexual intercourse. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court has to be confirmed. 10. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent. 11. The medical evidence indicates that she is accustom to sexual intercourse. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court has to be confirmed. 10. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent. 11. The accused was residing at No.A2/11, Venkatapuram, Chinnamalai, Saidapet, Chennai and P.W.1 (victim girl) was residing at the next house at No.A2/10, Venkatapuram, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai. They are known to each other since childhood. On the day of occurrence, as per the opinion of the Doctor, the accused was about 21 years old and P.W.1 about 18 years old. The age certificates of them are marked as Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.4 respectively. The medical report (Ex.P.3) of P.W.1 indicates that she is accustom to sexual intercourse. The medical report (Ex.P.10) of the accused indicates that he is potent adult male. 12. The Court below relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 has held that the accused has raped P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is very pivotal for the prosecution. The chief examination of P.W.1 was recorded on 12.10.2011. In her chief examination, she has deposed that the appellant gagged her mouth and dragged her into his house. She was unable to raise any alarm. Except that, she has said nothing about any resistance or protest by her when the appellant removed her inner garment and had intercourse. The medical evidence also does not indicate any sign of violence on her body. In the cross examination of P.W.1 which was done after 11 months. In the cross examination, she has added certain facts which were never said by any other witnesses or by P.W.1 herself during the investigation. Particularly she says that, when his sister knocked the door, she and the appellant were in the bathroom. In the bathroom, her hands and legs were tied with rope and her sister came and removed the rope. The Investigation Officer (P.W.13), in the cross examination admits that, during her investigation, P.W.1 did not say that she was tied with rope and raped in the bathroom. He did not recover any material from the house of the appellant. When he went and searched his house. 13. P.W.4, in her chief examination has stated that when she went to the house of the appellant, she saw her sister in disorderliness position. He did not recover any material from the house of the appellant. When he went and searched his house. 13. P.W.4, in her chief examination has stated that when she went to the house of the appellant, she saw her sister in disorderliness position. In the cross examination, she had not said that, P.W.1 was tied with rope and she released her. In fact, she said that, on seeing her P.W.1 came to her and told that the appellant had intercourse with her. 14. Though, the prosecution has stated the incident happened on 28.01.2010 and F.I.R in Crime No.1 of 2011 was registered on that day, the corrections in the date of occurrence found in the F.I.R probabilise the case of the accused that in order to force the accused to marry P.W.1, there was negotiation done by the police and only when the appellant refuse, the case was registered. There is also admission by P.W.2 that her daughter was conceived earlier because of this appellant and three months foetus was got aborted later. When this question was put to P.W.1, she has conveniently answered that, she does not remember. 15. It is also noted that though case registered on 28.01.2010 and the accused was secured on same day, neither the accused nor the victim were sent for medical examination immediately. They were examined by the Doctor only after 10 days i.e., on 08.02.2010. Obviously, the medical report of P.W.1 does not indicate any sign of sexual violence. That apart, the absence of mahazar for recovery of the underwear of the accused and contradiction regarding the colour of the panties of the victim which was recovered (green colour) and which was sent (blue colour) creates very great doubt about the investigation. 16. For the above said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that when grave charge is framed against a person, the degree of proof is also high. The complaint itself does not disclose the true fact. As per the complaint, P.W.4 was in her parental home from 15.01.2020 and the incident occurred one week thereafter. Whereas, the incident of rape is alleged to have occurred on 28.01.2020. In the cross examination, P.W.2 the mother of P.W.4 and the victim girl had deposed that P.W.1 came to her house two days period to the incident. 17. As per the complaint, P.W.4 was in her parental home from 15.01.2020 and the incident occurred one week thereafter. Whereas, the incident of rape is alleged to have occurred on 28.01.2020. In the cross examination, P.W.2 the mother of P.W.4 and the victim girl had deposed that P.W.1 came to her house two days period to the incident. 17. The incident alleged to have been happened in a thickly residential area where the offender and the victim were living next to next door. The offender was living with his parents and brother family jointly. While so, except the relatives of the victim, the prosecution has not examined any other witnesses residing nearby to corroborate the version of the prosecution as spoken through P.W.1 to P.W.4. On cumulative assessment of evidence, the contradictions among the prosecution witnesses, renders the evidence wholly unreliable. For the said reasons, this Court reverse the trial Court judgment by extends the benefit of doubt to the accused person. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is Allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.301 of 2011 dated 05.03.2013 on the file of Mahila Court, Chennai is set aside. Fine amount paid if any, shall be refunded to the accused/appellant. Bail Bond executed if any, shall stand cancelled. If the custody of the appellant is not required in any other case, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith.