JUDGMENT: Ms. Ritu Bahri, CJ. The present Government Appeal has been filed on behalf of the State, against the judgment/order dated 30-06-2014 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2013, “State Vs. Ajay Rana”, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,2012, registered at Police Station-Kotwali, Uttarkashi, District Uttarkashi. 2. Brief facts emerge from the complaint filed in Police Station, Kotwali, Uttarkashi on 29.10.2013 naming the accused. The allegations levelled are that on 28.10.2013., the prosecutrix, like every day, was going for her computer class, when at 8.30 am, the accused, a truck driver, her neighbour, snatched her copies and pens and started walking towards Ram Leela ground where his truck was parked. The prosecutrix followed the accused to take her copies and pen and on reaching near the truck, the accused forcefully pulled her into the cabin of the truck and gave her a hanky after which she fainted. On 29.10.2013, when she regained consciousness at around 06:00 A.M. she found herself in Harshil. When she asked the accused to drop her home, the accused brought her to Uttarkashi in a truck and dropped her at Ramlila Ground and told her that if she tells anyone about incident then, she will be insulted. 3. The said information was registered as Case Crime No. 44 of 2013 under section 363 of I.P.C, at Police Station Kotwali, Uttarkashi. 4. The charge sheet was filed on 10.12.2013 and on 20.12.2013, the charges under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 were framed against the accused. He denied the charges. 5. The prosecution examined the following witnesses:- P.W.1- Mother of the prosecutrix P.W.2- Prosecutrix P.W.3- Constable Arvind Kumar P.W.4- Dr. Smt. Sudha Singh P.W.5- Sub Inspector Ravi Prasad 6. He denied the charges. 5. The prosecution examined the following witnesses:- P.W.1- Mother of the prosecutrix P.W.2- Prosecutrix P.W.3- Constable Arvind Kumar P.W.4- Dr. Smt. Sudha Singh P.W.5- Sub Inspector Ravi Prasad 6. The Trial Court observed contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix in the tehrir and the statements made by her under section 164 of Cr.P.C. According to the F.I.R., on 28.10.2013 the accused dragged the prosecutrix inside the cabin of truck and gave her a hanky after which the prosecutrix lost consciousness, when she regained consciousness the next day i.e. on 29.10.2013 at around 06:00 A.M. she found herself in Harshil. However, in her oral evidence, the prosecutrix admitted that the accused stopped the truck in a secluded place near Heena and forcefully raped her and while she was crying, the accused gave her a hanky and asked her to wipe her tears and after five-ten minutes she lost consciousness. The prosecutrix has not mentioned about the incident of rape in the F.I.R. Thereby, the version of the prosecution becomes doubtful and gives strength to the case of the accused that he was deceived by the case of the prosecutrix and her mother. 7. In the facts of the present case, as per the statements of the prosecutrix PW-2, the date and time of incident is 28.10.2013 at 08.30 A.M. and the date and time when the prosecutrix re-gained consciousness is mentioned to be 29.10.2013 at 06:00 A.M. The prosecutrix has stated that she lodged the complaint on the same day when she regained consciousness, however the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.10.2013 at 22:15 hrs and no reason has been given for the delay in filing the F.I.R. 8. The Prosecution Witness No. 4 i.e. Dr. Sudha Singh has admitted in her oral evidence that the medical of PW-2 (prosecutrix) was conducted by her on 31.10.2013 and not on 01.11.2013, which was affirmed by the prosecutrix herself. However, in the F.I.R. the prosecutrix has mentioned that her medical examination was done on 01.11.2013. There is contradiction in the statement of the doctor and the prosecutrix regarding the date of medical examination. 9. The prosecutrix admits that she stayed at the police station with the lady constable from 30.10.2013 to 01.11.2013, while the P.W.-1, the mother of the complainant (prosecutrix) has admitted in her cross-examination that the complainant stayed with her from 30.10.2013 to 01.10.2013. 9. The prosecutrix admits that she stayed at the police station with the lady constable from 30.10.2013 to 01.11.2013, while the P.W.-1, the mother of the complainant (prosecutrix) has admitted in her cross-examination that the complainant stayed with her from 30.10.2013 to 01.10.2013. There is contradiction in the statements of both the witnesses and hence the prosecution's case becomes suspicious. 10. Even the Prosecution Witness 5- Sub-inspector in his cross examination has admitted he neither went to Heena or Manera, where the accused is alleged to have raped the prosecutrix nor prepared the map of the places. He further admits that delivery note Exhibit A-10 was prepared by him but does not bear his signature which raises suspicion that the F.I.R. may have been prepared in collusion with the Police. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2010 (10) SCC 439 , in Para no. 10 held as under: "10. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The Court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 held as under: "Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however hones and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so." 13. However, in the present case the discrepancies cannot be held to be minor as there is major contradiction in the version of the F.I.R. and the statements made before the court. In the complaint there is no mention of rape being committed upon the prosecutrix. However, it was only in her statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix disclosed that the accused committed rape upon her. It cannot be assumed that the prosecutrix who is 17-year-old and a first year B.Sc. student would forget to mention such an important fact in the F.I.R. According to the medical examination report, no injury marks were found in any part of body or genitals of the prosecutrix. No tear laceration or bleeding was observed. P.W.4- Dr. Sudha Singh admitted in the very beginning of her cross examination that "it is true that if a woman is forcefully raped or penetrated, it is possible for her to get injured somewhere on her body". The absence of injury marks and non-disclosure of offence of rape in the complaint make the case of the prosecution doubtful. Based on the evidence adduced before the Trial court, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court finds not merit in the said appeal. The Trial Court was right in acquitting the accused. 14. Based on the evidence adduced before the Trial court, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court finds not merit in the said appeal. The Trial Court was right in acquitting the accused. 14. We find no merit in the present Government Appeal, and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.