JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. The appellant has come up in appeal against the judgement and order dated 05.07.2014, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 2013 State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu, whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted respondent no. 2 from charges under section 363, 342 and 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the mother of the victim gave a written complaint on 22.05.2013 at 16:10 at police station Bhagwanpur with the averments that on the night of 20/21-05-2013 Smt. Jugnesh wife of Rajesh, resident of Sikroda lured away her daughter and took her from their home. At around 02:00 am when she looked at the bed of her daughter, her daughter was missing, then she and her husband started searching for their daughter but could not find her. However, on 22.05.2013 their daughter returned back at around 09:00 a.m. and told them that Jugnesh lured her and took her away with her and on the way accused Deepu S/o Pala Singh R/o village Sirkoda met them. They kept her hostage at the accused’s house where the accused committed rape upon her. 3. The case was investigated and charge sheet was filed against the accused Deepu under section 363,342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On 26.09.2013 the accused was charged under section 363, 342, 376(2)(h). By order dated 03.01.2014 the charges were amended and instead of section 376(2)(h), charge under Section 376(2)(i) was imposed. The accused denied the charges and sought for trial. 4. The following witnesses were examined for the purpose of proving the charges on behalf of the prosecution: (i) PW-1 Victim (ii) PW-2 Mother of the victim (iii) PW-3 Sister of the victim (iv) PW-4 Father of the victim (v) PW-5 Dr. Deepa (vi) PW-6 S.I. Pramod Kumar Negi (vii) PW-7 Constable Sushil Tiwari (viii) PW-8 Rajesh Gupta (ix) PW-9 Lalat Kumar 5. In the documentary evidence tahrir Ex-Ka-1, Medical Report of the Victim Ex-Ka-2, Supplementary Medical Report Ex-Ka-3, Site Plan Ex-Ka-4 and 5, Memo of Recovery of Clothes of victim Ex-Ka-6, Chargesheet Ex-Ka-7, Chik F.I.R. Ex-Ka-8, Copy of G.D. Ex-Ka-9, X-ray Report Ex-Ka-10, Arrest Memo Ex-Ka-11 and F.S.L. Report Ex-Ka-12 were proved. 6. In the documentary evidence tahrir Ex-Ka-1, Medical Report of the Victim Ex-Ka-2, Supplementary Medical Report Ex-Ka-3, Site Plan Ex-Ka-4 and 5, Memo of Recovery of Clothes of victim Ex-Ka-6, Chargesheet Ex-Ka-7, Chik F.I.R. Ex-Ka-8, Copy of G.D. Ex-Ka-9, X-ray Report Ex-Ka-10, Arrest Memo Ex-Ka-11 and F.S.L. Report Ex-Ka-12 were proved. 6. The trial court concluded that the victim is an unreliable witness as she had made contradictory statements in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination. In her cross-examination the victim stated that Jugnesh wrapped a scarf around her mouth but in her examination-in-chief she has stated that the accused Deepu wrapped a scarf around her mouth. In her examination-in chief the victim stated that the accused jumped over the wall of her house but in the cross-examination, she stated that the Jugnesh entered her house through the gate. The victim in her cross-examination has stated that Jugnesh took her to Deepak’s house, but on the other hand the victim in her examination-in-chief has stated that the accused took her to his house. The trial court further concluded that the statement of the victim that when Jugnesh took her to the accused’s house, his parents were present there and they did not ask the victim why she has come to their house and why she has a scarf wrapped around her mouth, is unbelievable and improbable. The court further concluded that the statement of the victim in her cross-examination that when Jugnesh dropped her back to her house, her family members did not ask anything to Jugnesh is unbelievable. The court found it difficult to believe that the parents whose 14-year daughter had been missing for more than 24 hours, they did not ask anything to Jugnesh when she drops the victim back to her home. Such a statement is unbelievable, unnatural and not feasible in all circumstances of human conduct. 7. PW-5 Dr. Deepa in her examination-in-chief stated that she examined the victim on 22.05.2013 and found that there were no external injury marks on the body of the victim, only laceration was present in vagina. On prevaginium examination, the hymen was found ruptured. The uterus was of normal size and the pregnancy was negative, however bleeding was present. There was labia minora on the right side of the vagina and a laceration was present below it of the size 1 c.m x 0.2 mm. x 0.1mm. On prevaginium examination, the hymen was found ruptured. The uterus was of normal size and the pregnancy was negative, however bleeding was present. There was labia minora on the right side of the vagina and a laceration was present below it of the size 1 c.m x 0.2 mm. x 0.1mm. According to the X-Ray report the radiological age of the victim was around 16 years. In the vaginal smear examination, no live or dead sperm was found. This witness in her cross-examination stated that the hymen may rupture because of playing and riding bicycle and the bleeding may be due to menstruation. She further stated that the laceration found in the right side of the vagina may be due to that. 8. PW-7-S.I. Pramod Kumar Negi who is the investigating officer in the present case in his cross-examination stated that the accused’s house has no boundary walls and his house and rooms are visible from the road. Accused’s four sisters, parents and the accused live in two rooms. No one can stay hidden in the accused’s house for 2-3 days. The witness further stated that when he went to the accused’s house for investigation and met the family members of the accused, they denied the occurrence of any such incident. During investigation, he recorded the statements of village witnesses who stated that there was a fight between the victim’s mother and Jugnesh over money transactions. The complainant and her daughters had beaten up Jugnesh. Due to this rivalry, they have filed a false case against Jugnesh. 9. The trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused lured the victim and took her away from the lawful guardianship of her father, kidnapped the victim and held her hostage in his house, caused her wrongful confinement and raped her. Therefore, according to the golden principles of jurisprudence the accused should be given the benefit of doubt in respect of the above allegations because there are major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and the court does not inspire confidence in the statement of the victim. 10. In the case of Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. 10. In the case of Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan, speaking for the Bench, held in Para No. 10 as under: “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 scrutinising the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinising the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. [Vide Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. (1952) 1 SCC 275 : AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839, State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 886 : AIR 1973 SC 2407 , Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 35 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 315 : AIR 1981 SC 765 , Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B. (2003) 12 SCC 377 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 429 and Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. (2007) 12 SCC 230 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 264].” 11. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to held that 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.” 12. However, in the present case the discrepancies cannot be held to be minor as there are major contradictions in the version of the F.I.R. the statements given by the victim in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. We agree with the view taken by the Learned Trial Court and hence are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. We are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the reasons assigned for acquitting the respondent and there being no perversity in the findings of the Trial Judge, this appeal against acquittal of the respondent deserves to be dismissed. 13. We find no merit in the present Criminal Appeal, and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.