JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2010 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Commissioner-VIII (F.T.C.) Ranchi in S.T. No.711 of 2009 whereby the accused-Gandur Munda was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven (7) years with fine of Rs. 2,500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for one month. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Cr. Appeal are that the informant/victim lodged the F.I.R. with these allegations that on 08.07.2009 in the evening all the family members of her house had gone to market and she was alone at her house and was cooking food. At 8 O’clock Gandur Munda of her village came to her house and told her that he wanted to tell her something took her to the Tand of Putul Munda in the western side of the village from her house and he raped her there. She wanted to raise alarm but he criminally intimidated her. After having committed rape upon her, Gandur Munda also asked her not to tell anyone in regard to the occurrence. In failure he would finish her life. She came back in the night at 11:30 O’clock and she told in regard to the occurrence to her mother and brother. Gandur Munda had raped her thrice during that period i.e. from 8 to 11:30 of night. In the morning the members of her house made search of him but he fled away from his house. On this written information of the informant-victim which was written by one Kishore Munda the case crime No. 39 of 2009 was registered under Section 376 of I.P.C. against the accused Gandur Munda. 3. The Investigating Officer having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused Gandur Munda and the court concerned after having taken cognizance thereon committed this case for trial to the court of sessions. The trial court framed the charge against the accused-Gandur Munda for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.; the same was read over and explained to him. The accused denied the charge and claimed to face the trial. 4. On behalf of prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in documentary evidence adduced the written information (Ext. The trial court framed the charge against the accused-Gandur Munda for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.; the same was read over and explained to him. The accused denied the charge and claimed to face the trial. 4. On behalf of prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in documentary evidence adduced the written information (Ext. 1), Police requisition for medical examination of victim Sunita Kumari dated 09.07.2009 (Ext.2), F.I.R. (Ext.3), registration of Sudhir Kumar O/C on written statement of informant Sunita Kumari (Ext.4), medical examination report of Sunita Kumari (Ext.5) and in oral evidence examined P.W.1 victim/informant herself, P.W.2 Nandia Mundian, P.W.3 Bhondu Munda, P.W.4 Chamin Mundian, P.W.5 Kishore Munda, P.W.6 William Preetam Demta (Investigating Officer), P.W.7 Dr. Kiran Kumari Chandel. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against him and told himself to be innocent. 6. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the parties passed the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2010 and sentence dated 27.09.2010 holding guilty the accused-Gandur Munda for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of 07 years and a fine of Rs.2500/-. In default of payment of fine the further imprisonment of one month was directed to undergo. 7. Aggrieved from the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C-VIII, Ranchi, this Cr. Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant/convict on the ground that the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court-below is based on wrong appreciation of the evidence. The learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective. The victim was wearing the very those cloths at the time of medical examination which she had worn at the time of occurrence but the same were not taken in custody by the police. As per testimony of victim she was taken away from her house at the distance of 1 k.m. from the west of the village but she did not raise alarm. As such she was also consenting party. Medical report does not support the prosecution story. The stay of the victim from 8:00 to 11:30 of night for three and half hours at the isolated place with the accused also shows that she was consenting party. As such she was also consenting party. Medical report does not support the prosecution story. The stay of the victim from 8:00 to 11:30 of night for three and half hours at the isolated place with the accused also shows that she was consenting party. In view of the above prayed to allow the Cr. Appeal and to set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court-below against the appellant. 8. I have heard the rival submission of the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. on behalf of the State and perused the relevant material on record. 9. For disposal of Cr. Appeal, the following points of determination is being framed: “Whether the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2020 and sentence dated 27.09.2010 passed by the court-below is sustainable in the eye of law” 10. This Court divert to scrutinize or appreciate the evidence on record adduced on behalf of the prosecution which is reproduced here-in-below:- 10.1 P.W.1 victim in her Examination-in-chief says that the occurrence is of 08.07.2009 at 8 O’clock in night. She was alone at her house. Her mother had gone to market. Her father had gone to graze the buffalo and she was cooking food at her house. At the same time Gandur Munda came to her house who on the pretext to say her something, took her to the Tand of Putul Munda and he raped her there three times. He also criminally intimidated her not to disclose the occurrence to anyone. Thereafter he fled away to his house. At 11:30 of night she came back to her home and told in regard to the occurrence to her father and mother. She was also medically examined by the Doctor. The written information is in her signature marked Ext.1. Police took her for examination to the Hospital. The place of occurrence from her house was 1 k.m. away. The place of occurrence was Tand. No house was there. While going from her house to the place of occurrence she raised alarm but no one came to rescue her. At the time of occurrence, she had worn brinjal colour skirt and black shirt. It was handed over to the police. There was no house of anyone nearby the place of occurrence. The police had also recorded her restatement. While going from her house to the place of occurrence she raised alarm but no one came to rescue her. At the time of occurrence, she had worn brinjal colour skirt and black shirt. It was handed over to the police. There was no house of anyone nearby the place of occurrence. The police had also recorded her restatement. 10.2 P.W.2 Nandia Mundian in her Examination-in-chief says that victim is her daughter. It was 8 O’clock on the date of occurrence. Her daughter was alone at the house. She had gone to the market. Her husband had gone to graze the buffalo. When she came back, she found her daughter missing. In the night at 11:30 her daughter came to her house and told in regard to the occurrence that Gandur Munda had raped her in the Tand of Putul Munda. In cross-examination this witness says that she is giving statement what her daughter had told to her. 10.3 P.W.3 Bhondu Munda in his statement says that victim is his daughter. On the date and time of occurrence he had gone to graze the buffalo. His wife had gone to the market. His daughter was alone at the house. When he came back to the house, his daughter was not found there. He made search of her. In the night she came back home and told in regard to the occurrence that Gandur Munda had raped her in the Tand of Putul Munda. In cross-examination this witness says that he is giving statement what his daughter had told to him. 10.4 P.W.4 Chamin Mundian in her Examination-in-chief says that the victim is her sister. She was at her in-law’s house. She came to know in regard to the occurrence from her father and came back to her parental house and victim told her that Gandur Munda had raped her in the Tand of Putul Munda. In cross-examination this witness says that she is giving statement what she had heard. 10.5 P.W.5 Kishore Munda in his Examination-in-chief says that victim is his sister. The occurrence was of 8 months ago. Time 8 O’clock in night. His mother had gone to market. His father was also out of the house. He was also out of the house. His sister was alone at the house. 10.5 P.W.5 Kishore Munda in his Examination-in-chief says that victim is his sister. The occurrence was of 8 months ago. Time 8 O’clock in night. His mother had gone to market. His father was also out of the house. He was also out of the house. His sister was alone at the house. Gandur Munda came to his house and took his sister to the Tand of Putul Munda where he raped her. The occurrence was told to him by his sister when she came back to the house. 10.6 P.W.6 William Preetam Demta, Investigating Officer in his Examination-in-chief says that on 08.07.2009 he was Assistant Sub-Inspector with the Police Station, Bero. The investigation of case crime No. 39 of 2009 was handed over to him. He recorded the restatement of victim and the statement of the other witnesses and also inspected the place of occurrence at the pointing of victim. The formal F.I.R. was also prepared by Suryadeo Mishra. He identified the signature thereon of him and it was also signed by the Station Officer of the Police Station Mr. Sudhir Kumar Choudhary marked Ext.3. This F.I.R. was prepared on the basis of the written information given by the victim herself. This written information was directed by the Station Officer Mr. Sudhir Kumar Choudhary to register the F.I.R. marked Ext.4. In cross-examination this witness says that the place of occurrence from the house of victim was 1 k.m. away. The cloths which the victim had worn on the date of occurrence he did not take in his custody. He reached to the house of victim on the very day of occurrence. The victim was medically examined on 10.07.2009. The time gap between the occurrence and the medical examination was 36 to 40 hours. 10.7 P.W.7 Dr. Kiran Kumari Chandel in her Examination-in-chief says that the victim was medically examined on 10.07.2009 at 12:35 p.m. She did not find any mark of fresh injury or the struggle anywhere on the body. From the report received after pathological analysis, it was found that no live or dead spermatozoa was found. The age of the victim was determined 17 to 18 years old on the basis of radiological report. There was no evidence of sexual intercourse at the time of examination. The medical examination report is in her handwriting and signature marked Ext.5. From the report received after pathological analysis, it was found that no live or dead spermatozoa was found. The age of the victim was determined 17 to 18 years old on the basis of radiological report. There was no evidence of sexual intercourse at the time of examination. The medical examination report is in her handwriting and signature marked Ext.5. In cross-examination this witness says that in the age of 2 years plus minus margin may be formed. 11. The learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant has argued that the victim at the time of occurrence was major though as per opinion of the Doctor her age was determined 17 to 18 years yet in view of 02 years plus minus, the benefit would go to the appellant/convict. The very conduct of victim shows that she was consenting party. The medical evidence also does not corroborate the testimony of prosecutrix and contended to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence and to acquit the appellant/convict. 12. Per contra the learned Spl.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and contended that the consent of victim was obtained by the appellant/convict on pretext that he would tell something to her and thereafter he took her at a distance of 1 k.m. away from the house where at the solitude place, he committed rape thrice upon her and since there was no one to hear the alarm raised by the victim as such the conduct of victim cannot be said to be unnatural because victim was also criminally intimidated by the appellant/convict. As she came back to her house, she immediately told in regard to the occurrence to her father, mother and brother whose testimony also corroborates the testimony of victim. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court-below does not bear any infirmity and needs no interference. 13. As per prosecution story, the appellant/convict came to the house of victim at 8 O’ Clock in night when she was all alone at her house and as per testimony of victim he asked the victim to say something and on this very pretext he took her to Tand of Putul Munda 1 k.m. away from her house. 13. As per prosecution story, the appellant/convict came to the house of victim at 8 O’ Clock in night when she was all alone at her house and as per testimony of victim he asked the victim to say something and on this very pretext he took her to Tand of Putul Munda 1 k.m. away from her house. As per prosecution case at that time when appellant went to the house of victim, the father, mother and brother of the victim all the three were out of the house. There was an opportunity for the appellant to visit the house of victim when she was all alone at her house. 13.1 As per testimony of victim, the appellant raped her thrice at the isolated place which was Tand of Putul Munda from 8 O’ clock to 11:30 of night. After having raped her, the appellant went to his house and he also asked the victim not to disclose any one in regard to the occurrence. In failure he also criminally intimidated her. When victim came back to her house, she told in regard to the commission of rape by the appellant upon her thrice at the Tand of Putul Munda to her family members. P.W.1 prosecutrix has also proved the contents of the written information Ext.1 which was given by the victim herself. Her statement is found in consonance of the prosecution story. 13.2 As per prosecution case when victim reached to her house, she told in regard to the occurrence to her family members. To this effect on behalf of prosecution examined father of victim, mother of victim and the brother of victim as well. P.W.2 Nandia Mundian is the mother of victim, P.W.3 Bhondu Munda is the father of victim and P.W.5 Kishore Munda is the brother of victim. All the three in their statement have stated that when they came back to their house, they found victim missing from the house. Search was made of her. At 11:30 in night victim came house and she told that Gandur Munda had come to her house at 8 O’ Clock in the night and took her to the Tand of Putul Munda 1 k.m. away from her house where he committed rape upon her thrice and thereafter he left to his house and she came back to her home at 11:30 in night. The testimony of prosecutrix is corroborated with the testimony of these witness P.W.2 Nandia Mundian, P.W.3 Bhondu Munda and P.W.5 Kishore Munda. Though all these three witnesses have told in regard to the occurrence what the victim has told to them but their testimony becomes admissible in evidence since their source of knowledge in regard to the occurrence is what the victim has told to them and victim has been examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W.1. Therefore, the testimony of all these three witnesses P.W.2 Nandia Mundian, P.W.3 Bhondu Munda and P.W.5 Kishore Munda becomes admissible in evidence. 13.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Mukhtiar Singh & Anr. vrs. State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 1854 8. PW-5 has clearly stated in his statement that no telephone was installed at the Railway Station, Kahangarh but there was a telephone installed at the Railway Control Room at the Railway Station which, however, was found to be out of order. He also stated that he had gone to GRP Police Post at Budhlada from where he sent a message to the Control Room at Bathinda on telephone about the occurrence. The aforesaid statement clearly explains the delay in sending the information and also explained as to why detailed information regarding all materials leading to the occurrence was not mentioned by him. He cannot be called in any manner an interested witness; in fact he was a most dis-interested witness. Nothing has been brought on record to show that he is inimical to the accused persons. He has specifically stated in his depositions that he saw the aforesaid accused running towards the village side carrying weapons. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted as it is established that he was at duty at the Railway Police Post, Kahangarh, which is the place of occurrence. He has also stated in his depositions that he had in fact chased the two accused persons up to a certain distance but could not manage to nab them and that when he returned to the scene of occurrence, Surjit Kaur, PW-3, disclosed to him about the occurrence. He has also stated in his depositions that he had in fact chased the two accused persons up to a certain distance but could not manage to nab them and that when he returned to the scene of occurrence, Surjit Kaur, PW-3, disclosed to him about the occurrence. This shows that he did not see the accused persons attacking the deceased but learnt about the same from an eye witness and the said information about the dead body lying at the platform was flashed by him, for he knew that on receipt of the aforesaid information the police should start investigation and during that course police would definitely ask eye witnesses and get all the information from them. In any case, his information would be hearsay evidence, but as the same corroborates the substantive evidence of PW. 2 and PW. 3 the same would be admissible, as was held in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [ (2003) 11 SCC 241 ], wherein it was observed that evidence of such nature could be used to corroborate the substantive evidence. However, in that case, as there was no substantive evidence the benefit of said evidence was not granted. 14. The testimony of prosecutrix who is the star witness of the occurrence is to be evaluated in the light of the testimony of Doctor P.W.7 Dr. Kiran Kumari Chandel and also the Investigating Officer P.W.6 William Preetam Demta. 15. P.W.7 Dr. Kiran Kumari Chandel examined victim on 10.07.2009 at 12:35 p.m. This witness has stated that no any mark of fresh injury or the struggle anywhere were found on the body of victim. The slide made from glove finger collection sent for the microscopic examination. X’ray wrist elbow and pelvic sent for age determination. From the pathology report received on 13.07.2009 no live or dead spermatozoa found. In view of the report from radiology received on 17.07.2009 her age was determined 17-18 years. The opinion is given no evidence of sexual intercourse at the time of examination. This witness also stated that this medical examination was prepared in her hand writing and signed by her marked Ext.5. 16. Admittedly on behalf of prosecution in regard to age of victim no documentary evidence has been adduced. The only evidence in regard to age determination is the medical examination report of victim. As per testimony of P.W.7 Dr. This witness also stated that this medical examination was prepared in her hand writing and signed by her marked Ext.5. 16. Admittedly on behalf of prosecution in regard to age of victim no documentary evidence has been adduced. The only evidence in regard to age determination is the medical examination report of victim. As per testimony of P.W.7 Dr. Kiran Kumari Chandel the age of victim was determined 17 to 18 years. This witness P.W. 7 in her cross-examination also admits that there may be variation of 2 years plus minus in the age of victim in view of medical examination based on ossification test. 17. Since there is only evidence in regard to the age of victim is the medical evidence which cannot be conclusive in nature, the two years variation of plus minus in the age, the benefit of the doubt in age estimation would go to the accused. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Ram Suresh Singh vrs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh & Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 681 and Jyoti Prakash Rai @ Jyoti Prakash vrs. State of Bihar 2008 (15) SCC 223 : 13. A medical report determining the age of a person has never been considered by the courts of law as also by the medical scientists to be conclusive in nature. After a certain age it is difficult to determine the exact age of the person concerned on the basis of ossification test or other tests. This Court in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra [ (2006) 1 SCC 283 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 217] opined : (SCC p. 290, para 20) “20. It is urged before us by Mr Lalit that the determination of the age of the prosecutrix by conducting ossification test is scientifically proved and, therefore, the opinion of the doctor that the girl was of 18-19 years of age should be accepted. We are unable to accept this contention for the reasons that the expert medical evidence is not binding on the ocular evidence. We are unable to accept this contention for the reasons that the expert medical evidence is not binding on the ocular evidence. The opinion of the Medical Officer is to assist the court as he is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character and not binding on the witness of fact.” In the aforementioned situation, this Court in a number of judgments has held that the age determined by the doctors should be given flexibility of two years on either side. 18.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Rajak Mohammad vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 9 SCC 248 : 9. While it is correct that the age determined on the basis of a radiological examination may not be an accurate determination and sufficient margin either way has to be allowed, yet the totality of the facts stated above read with the report of the radiological examination leaves room for ample doubt with regard to the correct age of the prosecutrix. The benefit of the aforesaid doubt, naturally, must go in favour of the accused. 18.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary vrs. State of Haryana & Another (2022) 6 SCC 187 : 16. The Medical Board has opined the age of the appellant between 23 to 24 years, when the appellant was examined on 13-5-2016. This report has been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to allow the plea of juvenility raised by the appellant. However, it is to be noted that ossification test varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case. 18. Hence, it cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India. 20. The Court held as under : (Jyoti Prakash Rai case [Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 223 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 796], SCC pp. 228-29, paras 12- 13) “12. The 2000 Act is indisputably a beneficial legislation. Principles of beneficial legislation, however, are to be applied only for the purpose of interpretation of the statute and not for arriving at a conclusion as to whether a person is juvenile or not. 228-29, paras 12- 13) “12. The 2000 Act is indisputably a beneficial legislation. Principles of beneficial legislation, however, are to be applied only for the purpose of interpretation of the statute and not for arriving at a conclusion as to whether a person is juvenile or not. Whether an offender was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence or not is essentially a question of fact which is required to be determined on the basis of the materials brought on record by the parties. In the absence of any evidence which is relevant for the said purpose as envisaged under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the same must be determined keeping in view the factual matrix involved in each case. For the said purpose, not only relevant materials are required to be considered, the orders passed by the court on earlier occasions would also be relevant. 13. A medical report determining the age of a person has never been considered by the courts of law as also by the medical scientists to be conclusive in nature. After a certain age it is difficult to determine the exact age of the person concerned on the basis of ossification test or other tests. This Court in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 217 opined : (SCC p. 290, para 20) ‘20. It is urged before us by Mr Lalit that the determination of the age of the prosecutrix by conducting ossification test is scientifically proved and, therefore, the opinion of the doctor that the girl was of 18-19 years of age should be accepted. We are unable to accept this contention for the reasons that the expert medical evidence is not binding on the ocular evidence. The opinion of the Medical Officer is to assist the court as he is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character and not binding on the witness of fact.’ In the aforementioned situation, this Court in a number of judgments has held that the age determined by the doctors should be given flexibility of two years on either side.” 19. In the case in hand after the age determination of the victim it is found that victim was major on the date of occurrence. In the case in hand after the age determination of the victim it is found that victim was major on the date of occurrence. Her conduct also become relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 20. As per testimony of prosecutrix on the fateful night she was alone at her house. At 8 O’clock in the night appellant/convict came to her house and he told her that he would tell her something. On this very pretext he took her 1 k.m. away from her house to the Tand of Putul Munda. At that time she was cooking food in her house. She immediately leaving her cooking work followed the appellant who took her 1 k.m. away from the house without any resistance. Her conduct accompanying the appellant from her house at 8 O’ clock in night to 1 k.m. away from her house at a solitude place where she stayed with him for more than three hours and during that period appellant/convict had raped her thrice. She did not offer any resistant to Appellant at the time of rape. The victim also found consenting party. Being major one her conduct becomes relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. The testimony of the victim also does not find corroboration by the medical evidence. As per medical evidence of the victim which has been proved by P.W.7 Dr. Kiran Kumari Chandel. There were no sign of external injury or struggle on the body of victim while the victim was also examined on the very next day of the occurrence. The vaginal swab was also taken on the very time of examination and same was sent to the pathological examination. As per pathological report no spermatozoa live or dead was found. As per opinion of P.W.7 Dr. Kiran Kumari Chandel no recent sign of sexual intercourse were found at the time of examination of victim. Therefore, the testimony of prosecutrix is not corroborated with the medical evidence. 22. On behalf of prosecution the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.6 William Preetam Demta. This witness says that he recorded the restatement of victim and other witnesses after having taken over the investigation of the case crime No. 39 of 2009. He also inspected the place of occurrence and got the medical examination of victim. 22. On behalf of prosecution the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.6 William Preetam Demta. This witness says that he recorded the restatement of victim and other witnesses after having taken over the investigation of the case crime No. 39 of 2009. He also inspected the place of occurrence and got the medical examination of victim. He says that the time gap between the medical examination and the time of occurrence was 36 to 40 hours. This witness also says that he did not take in custody the cloths of the victim for medical examination. As per testimony of victim she had worn the very those cloths at the time of her medical examination which she had worn at the time of occurrence; but the same were not taken in custody and sent to F.S.L. for examination in regard to the presence of sperm on her cloths so as to ascertain the commission of rape. The benefit of the laches on the part of the Investigating Officer also goes to the accused. This laches on the part of the Investigating Officer is on the material point, the same is found fatal to the prosecution case. 23. In the case in hand the victim being major her prior conduct from the occurrence accompanying the appellant leaving her house for 1 k.m. away from her house to the solitude place at the odd hours in night and staying there for more than three and half hours with the appellant without any resistance and her testimony finding no corroboration from the medical evidence, the reasonable and plausible view is to acquit the accused since the prosecution case is not found proved beyond all shadow of doubt. 23.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Suresh Chandra Jana vrs. State of West Bengal 2017 (16) SCC 466 : 22. So far as the argument that when two views are possible, the view favouring the accused should be accepted, is concerned, we have carefully gone through the detailed judgment of the trial court discussing every bit of evidence, and the one passed by the High Court, impugned before us. State of West Bengal 2017 (16) SCC 466 : 22. So far as the argument that when two views are possible, the view favouring the accused should be accepted, is concerned, we have carefully gone through the detailed judgment of the trial court discussing every bit of evidence, and the one passed by the High Court, impugned before us. In our considered opinion from the evidence on record, the view taken by the High Court so far as it relates to accused Purnendu Kumar Patra is concerned, the same is not a reasonably possible view, for the reason that it is against the weight of the evidence on record ignoring completely the circumstances in which the victim reported the matter to the police, with the help of a stranger and that her statement in the FIR is fully corroborated from the statements of PW 1 Dipak Guchhait, PW 2 Sudha Krishna Jana and PW 7 Joyram Jana, apart from the medical evidence on record. 24. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court-below bears infirmity and same needs interference and this appeal deserves to be allowed. 25. This Cr. Appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2010 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, VIII (F.T.C.) Ranchi is hereby set aside. 26. The appellant/convict is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled and the sureties are discharged from liabilities. 27. Let the learned court-below be certified with Judgment and the record of court-below be sent back along with the copy of the Judgment.