JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent, the State has filed the instant appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.09.2009, a telephonic information was received in the police station that Lata Devi daughter of Dharam Singh had been murdered and her dead body had been lying in the fields of village Dhamon. On receipt of this information, the Station House Officer, Paonta Sahib, directed the Incharge, Police Post, Singhpura, to proceed to the spot and the SHO also joined there. The statement of Dharam Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he stated that on 29.09.2009, there was marriage of Anil Kumar son of Shri Sher Singh in village Dhamon. On that day, Lata along with other girls visited the house of Anil Kumar in order to attend the marriage. The house of Anil Kumar was at a distance of 300-400 metres from his house. At about 10.00 p.m., Lata returned with meal from marriage and after getting the same served to the family members, she again returned to the marriage place. After some time, his two sons, Anuj and Rajesh, returned to home and went to sleep. On the morning of 30.09.2009, at about 7.00 a.m., when he got up, he found Lata to be absent. He then asked his son, who feigned ignorance about her whereabouts. He then enquired from the neighbours and relations, but to no avail. Thereafter, efforts were made to search Lata and it was during search that at about 1.00 p.m., the slippers worn by Lata were found on the lintel of Anil Kumar. Later, in the day, at about 4.30-4.45 p.m., dead body of Lata was recovered from the fields at a distance of 100 metres from the house of Anil. She was found having scratches/injuries on her face and other parts of her body and the ‘pant’ worn by her was also found to be torn from crotch area. It appeared that Lata had been raped and thereafter murdered. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, an FIR Ext. PW-22/A came to be registered. 3. During investigation, PW-26, I.O./SHO B.D.Bhatia prepared site plan Ext. PW-26/A and filled up the inquest reports Ex. PW-1/B and PW-1/C. Photographs of the spot were taken. It appeared that Lata had been raped and thereafter murdered. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, an FIR Ext. PW-22/A came to be registered. 3. During investigation, PW-26, I.O./SHO B.D.Bhatia prepared site plan Ext. PW-26/A and filled up the inquest reports Ex. PW-1/B and PW-1/C. Photographs of the spot were taken. Soil samples from the spot as well as from the adjoining fields were collected and taken into possession vide memos Ext. PW-7/A and Ext. PW-7/B. 4. The dead body of Lata was sent to the Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, where it was examined by the Board of Doctors consisting of PW-10 Dr. Amithabh Jain, Dr. Vijay Krishna and Dr. Mrs. Daljeet Kaur, who thereafter issued report Ext. PW-10/B and the dead body thereafter referred to I.G.M.C., Shimla for extensive post mortem examination. 5. On 02.10.2009, the Board of Doctors consisting of PW-11 Dr. H.S.Sekhon, Dr. Sangeet Dhilon and Dr. Gopal Beri had conducted post mortem examination of Lata and issued report Ext. PW-11/A and final opinion regarding death was given vide reports Ext. PW-11/B and Ext. PW-11/C. 6. On 03.10.2009, three C.Ds (compact discs) Ext. P-6 to P-8 were produced by Anil of village Dhamon, who had got married and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/D in the presence of witnesses. The aforesaid C.Ds were played on computer in the presence of witnesses Vinkesh, Anil and Dharam Chand etc. PW-4 identified the respondent as the same boy, who had taken Lata to the fields. 7. On 24.11.2009, the respondent was arrested by the police and arrest memo Ext. PW-20/C was prepared. PW-25 ASI Kamal Nain interrogated the respondent and in the presence of the witnesses, the respondent made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-19/A wherein he stated that he could show the place where he had taken Lata alias Ravina with him and could identify such place. The respondent led to the field situate near the house of Anil, owned by Heera Singh and identified the site/field as a place where he had taken the deceased. Spot map qua identification Ext. PW-25/A was prepared by the Investigating Officer. 8. On 30.11.2009, slippers Ext. P-1 were produced before Gurdial Singh, (PW-13) Naib Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib, where the same were identified by PW-5 Gian Singh, Vinkesh, Manoj Kumar and a certificate Ext. PW-13/A in this regard was issued by PW-13. 9. Spot map qua identification Ext. PW-25/A was prepared by the Investigating Officer. 8. On 30.11.2009, slippers Ext. P-1 were produced before Gurdial Singh, (PW-13) Naib Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib, where the same were identified by PW-5 Gian Singh, Vinkesh, Manoj Kumar and a certificate Ext. PW-13/A in this regard was issued by PW-13. 9. The copies of birth certificate Ext. PW-14/B and pariwar register Ext. PW-15/B were obtained by the police and according to the same, the date of birth of Lata was 27.01.1996. 10. During investigation, the case property was deposited in the ‘malkhana’ with Incharge PW-17 Head constable Bishan Singh and thereafter the same was sent to FSL, Junga through constable Narain Dutt PW-18. Reports Ext. PW-26/D, PW-26/E, PW-26/F and PW-26/G were received by the police, according to which, human blood was found on pubic hair of Lata as well as human blood of group ‘B’ was found on ‘salwar’, ‘pant’, ‘sweater, vest, but no semen was found. Statements of witnesses were recorded by SHO PW-26. 11. On conclusion of the investigation, the respondent was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. The prosecution in all examined as many as 27 witnesses and the respondent examined 2 witnesses in defence. 13. The learned Sessions Judge, after recording the statements of the witnesses and evaluating the same, has acquitted the respondent and aggrieved thereby, the State has filed the instant appeal. 14. It is vehemently argued by Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses, more particularly, the statements of PW-4 to PW-6 and has further failed to appreciate the statement of PW-11 Dr. H.S.Sekhon, who had conducted post-mortem in this case. 15. On the other hand, Shri N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Karan Veer Singh, Advocate, for the respondent, would argue that the judgment rendered by the learned Court below was exhaustive wherein the statements of each of the witnesses had firstly been reproduced and thereafter discussed in detail and it is only thereafter that the respondent has been acquitted. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 17. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 17. Firstly, we would deal with the question as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case with regard to offence under Section 376 IPC i.e. rape. 18. In the statements of PW-10 and PW-11, the doctors, who examined the body of the deceased, have stated the cause of death to be on account of (a) death due to sudden cardiac arrest either due to extreme fear leading to ventricular fibrillation and (b) death due to vagal inhibition (sudden death occurring within seconds or minutes due to minor trauma or relatively simple harmless peripheral stimulation) could not be ruled out. Further, PW-11 unequivocally stated that when a girl is alleged to be raped, then there ought to be injuries on the other parts of the body which were not found on the body of the deceased as examined by him. The possibility of injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report on the face of the deceased could have been received by fall from one field to another and such possibility could not be ruled out. He infact opined that no sexual assault has been perpetrated on the person of the deceased as there was no evidence of any such sexual assault. He further deposed that he had not found any signs or evidence of forcibly penetration. The marks of blood found on the vaginal swab and pubic hair had been attributed to decomposition of fluid as when the dead body starts decomposing, the blood stained fluid oozes out from the vaginal area, nostril and mouth owing to pressure of decomposition gases. Moreover, no semen was also found on the clothes or body of the deceased. 19. Thus, in such circumstances, no fault can be found with regard to findings of acquittal rendered by the learned Court below as regards the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. 20. As regards other offences, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of PW-4 Vinkesh alias Sonu, who deposed that on 29th September, 2009, there was marriage of Anil in village Dhamon. He along with his brother Akhil had also attended the said marriage. His cousins Dinesh and Rajesh, who are sons of his Bua (Aunt), were also present in the marriage. He along with his brother Akhil had also attended the said marriage. His cousins Dinesh and Rajesh, who are sons of his Bua (Aunt), were also present in the marriage. At about 8.15 P.M. they had dinner. After taking meal, they came to the place where wedding chairs were installed and there they sat on other chairs for about one and half hours. After that they moved to the place where the DJ (music system) was being played. They sat amongst other people on the chairs. After that he went to the first floor terrace and sat on the chair where other persons were also seated. Lata was also sitting near them. He had a talk with her and remained there for another one and half hours. Lata, too, remained seated there. He has, also, deposed that a boy of 26 or 27 years of age came to the stairs and called Lata in local Pahari dialect pursuant to which Lata went to him. The said boy appeared to be drunk. The said boy was wearing jeans pant and a vest of white colour and was holding his shirt on his shoulder. The said boy and Lata went to the terrace of second storey of the said house. He got anxious and thought as to why that boy had taken Lata upstairs and after 4/5 minutes, he, followed them to the terrace of second storey. There he found Manoj @ Bobby and Gian Chand lying on the floor on a mattress/bedding. He told them that a boy in drunk condition had taken Lata to the upper storey. However, he did not find said boy and Lata over there. With the light of torch, they saw said boy and Lata running towards right side in the field. He, Manoj and Gian Singh went to the field to look for them, but they did not find Lata and the said boy in the field, however, they found a pair of the slippers in the field in the direction in which they had seen them running. Since there were bushes and thorned hedge, as such, they could not go further and Gian Singh picked up the slippers and they returned to the aforesaid terrace. Gian Singh kept those slippers on the terrace where he was lying down. Since there were bushes and thorned hedge, as such, they could not go further and Gian Singh picked up the slippers and they returned to the aforesaid terrace. Gian Singh kept those slippers on the terrace where he was lying down. He has further deposed that thereafter he came to the first storey and informed Parvesh, son of his bua about Lata's incident. Parvesh went to fetch a companion and came back with Pinku and, then, they three again went to the terrace of second storey and met Gian Singh and Manoj aforesaid. They six again went in search of Lata and the said boy to the place, where they had found slippers. No body was found there. Pinku asked him if he could identify said boy on which PW4 said that he could identify if his photographs are shown to him. He described the features of the said boy to Pinku, who went to look for the photographs of the boy described by him. Before leaving, he said that the boy could be Sanju Bhai. He has deposed that on 4th he was joined in the investigation by the police and they aforesaid six boys were in the police station along with Anil Kumar. Police played a cassette of the marriage of Anil on computer and asked him if he could identify the said boy in the marriage film and on being showed second cassette he saw that boy figuring in the film. On his identifying said boy, the boys of village Dhamon told his name as Sanjay of their village. He identified the said boy as Sanjay, present in the court as accused and deposed that he is the same boy, who had taken Lata on that night. During the course of his cross- examination, he has admitted that the passage goes through the courtyard of the house of the accused Sanjay to the house of his Bua, but volunteered that he used to go to his Bua's house on the motor cycle from other passage. He has denied that whenever he visited the house of his Bua, he often met accused Sanjay in the village. He has also deposed that on first of October, 2009, police had come to his house and thereafter he went to Police Station, Paonta Sahib with the police. Many villagers of Dhamon were present in the police station, at that time. He has also deposed that on first of October, 2009, police had come to his house and thereafter he went to Police Station, Paonta Sahib with the police. Many villagers of Dhamon were present in the police station, at that time. He was asked about the incident by the police. He has, also, deposed in his cross- examination that from 11.00 A.M. in the morning till 5.00 P.M. in the evening, he remained in the police station for 5/6 days consecutively. In the marriage firstly they remained seated near the wedding chairs and thereafter went to the place where the DJ was being played and remained there for one and half hour. After that he went to the upper storey where Lata was sitting and sat on the chair next to Lata. Suman was already sitting with Lata. The said boy had come after about one and half hour of their sitting there on the first floor. The boy had called Lata from a distance of about 10 feet. They did not search for long and went to the aforesaid place in the field and picked up the slippers and came back. When they brought the chapels to second storey, at that time, a 'Sardar' and 6-7 other persons were present there. Anil had been coming to the police station since the date of the death. Sanjay was called to the police station after he told about his features on 4th October. He had met Manoj, Gian and Pardeep in the fair on the 30th in village Saalwala. Manoj and Gian Singh are his friends and Pardeep, too, is known to him. He denied that he has concocted the story in connivance with his above named friends. 21. Even though, the Court below has observed that PW-5 Gian Singh and PW-6 Manoj Kumar have supported the version of PW-4 Vinkesh in toto and nothing contrary has been elicited in the lengthy cross-examination. However, the records would reveal that unlike Vinkesh, PW-5 nowhere mentioned the name either of accused or the deceased-victim and only stated that Vinkesh and Manoj Kumar had come to him and told that a boy and girl had gone towards the fields. He further deposed that we had gone to the field to look after for the said boy and girl, but did not find them. He further deposed that we had gone to the field to look after for the said boy and girl, but did not find them. However, a pair of slippers was found lying in the direction in which the boy and girl had gone. It seems that this witness has clearly tried to make improvements by claiming that the slippers were lying in the direction in which the boy and girl had gone. 22. That apart, PW-6 Manoj Kumar has contradicted both eye witnesses PW-4 Vinkesh and PW-5 Gian Singh by claiming that Vinkesh had told that a boy and girl had gone towards the field and he got up and took a torch and threw light towards the field where he saw a boy and girl running in the front direction and they did not look back. He further deposed that the boy was wearing a white colour vest, as was otherwise deposed by Vinkesh. Like PW-5, even PW-6 does not name either of the respondent or for that matter of the deceased and has only made reference to a boy and girl. Therefore, to that extent, the findings rendered by the learned Court below are erroneous. 23. Now, in such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to conclude when the respondent was last seen with the deceased. PW-5 describes the features of the boy, as told by PW-4, to be a boy having hair partition from middle on his forehead, wearing a white vest. PW-6 has also stated that the deceased was last seen in the company of the said boy, who was wearing white vest. It has also come in the investigation that it was PW-4, who had been talking with the deceased for over one and half hour and it is thereafter that the boy with the features as described above appeared and took the deceased with him to the second floor where Manoj and Gian Chand were lying on the mattresses. It is, thereafter that search was carried out collectively by PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, but to no avail. The attempts to trace them (both respondent and deceased) proved to be futile as hedge of thorn and bushes prevented them from chasing the aforesaid two, but then slippers of the deceased were found. It is, thereafter that search was carried out collectively by PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, but to no avail. The attempts to trace them (both respondent and deceased) proved to be futile as hedge of thorn and bushes prevented them from chasing the aforesaid two, but then slippers of the deceased were found. Now, in case the features as described by PW-4 and thereafter by PW-5 and PW-6 are evaluated with the other documentary evidence, then it would be noticed that the respondent is present in Ext. D-1 on 29.09.2009 along with the bridal couple and does not have center partitioning and is not wearing a white vest and holding shirt over his shoulder, rather, he is seen wearing a black vest and a green shirt and does not appear to be an inebriated person. Consequently, the features of the respondent as existing in Ext. D-1, bely the testimonies of PW-4 to PW-6. 24. Now, once the identity of the respondent as was sought to be established by PW-4, has not been established, then the next ancillary question arises as to whether the respondent in fact had taken the deceased with him at the time as suggested by PW-4 to PW-6. As per PW-4, he had taken his meal at 8.15 p.m. and enjoyed the festivities for one and half hours and thereafter proceeded to the first floor where he along with Lata and Suman sat for about one and half hour which suggests that on 29.09.2009 upto 11.30 p.m., the respondent had not arrived at the place where PW-4 was seated with Lata. PW-4 admits in his cross-examination that till 11.30 p.m., the bridal couple remained seated on the dais. However, viewing Ext. D-1 reveals that on 29.09.2009 at about 11.30 p.m., the bridal couple had alighted from the dais and the respondent had greeted them. His (respondent) presence in Ext.D-1 at that time negates the version of PW-4. 25. Apart from the above, DW-1, Anil whose marriage was attended by PWs as well as respondent, deposed that after clicking Ext. D-1 in which the respondent is seen in the company of the bridal couple, the respondent remained with him till late hours of the marriage which completely demolishes the testimony of PW-4 that he had last seen the respondent in the company of the deceased. 26. D-1 in which the respondent is seen in the company of the bridal couple, the respondent remained with him till late hours of the marriage which completely demolishes the testimony of PW-4 that he had last seen the respondent in the company of the deceased. 26. As regards testimony of PW-11, doctor H.S. Sekhon, H.O.D., Forensic Medicine Department, I.G.M.C., Shimla, he has proved on record his report and has ruled out the possibility of an offence of rape having been committed on the deceased. The other findings are only with regard to the injuries and the death which otherwise are not in dispute in the instant case. Therefore, it cannot be held that the testimony of PW-11 has been in any manner ignored by the learned Court below. The learned Court below has with great pain firstly reproduced the statement of each of the witnesses in extenso and referred to the exhibited documents in detail and it is only after appreciation and evaluating the same, it has rendered the findings of acquittal which warrant no interference. 27. Lastly and more importantly, the entire prosecution case is demolished when the prosecution seeks to introduce a witness master Kirnesh Kumar son of Shri Raghubir Singh, aged 14 years, resident of village Upper Dhamon, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. as PW-9. The learned Court below after recording its satisfaction that the witness understands the sanctity of oath permitted recording of his statement on oath. In his statement, apart from other facts, which are not relevant, this witness stated as follows: “On 28.09., when I was going to the school, Sanjay was following me. Sanjay said to me that if I would disclose about the bringing of milk by four women by milching the cow to anybody he would do the same thing to me which he did of Lata”. 28. Earlier to that, the witness has stated that while sleeping on the bed, he at about 3.00 a.m. in the night had got up to urinate and because of darkness, he fell from the roof of upper storey on the ground. His ‘Nanaji’ threw light of torch and he was picked up by Randhir and brought to first floor of the house. Anil’s father and other persons had gathered there. His ‘Nanaji’ was also present there. His ‘Nanaji’ threw light of torch and he was picked up by Randhir and brought to first floor of the house. Anil’s father and other persons had gathered there. His ‘Nanaji’ was also present there. His ‘Bua’ Kusha had also come over there and thereafter she went to milch the cow, but he could not bring milk as he could not milch cow at that time. Thereafter, other women went with his ‘Bua’ and brought milk. Now, clearly, the threat, according to this witness, was extended to him on 28.09.2009 by saying that the respondent would do the same thing to this witness which he had done of Lata, whereas, Lata as per the prosecution case had gone missing much later on the intervening night of 29/30.09.2009. 29. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 ). 30. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in the cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. (See: Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808 ). 31. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.