JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. Present Criminal Jail Appeal has been received from the Superintendent of District Jail, Haridwar. The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.02.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2014, “State vs. Mahant Digamber Tejgiri alias Mauni Baba alias Tarsaim Singh”, by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”); he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 506 part II IPC; he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 471 IPC read with Section 465 IPC, and, he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 66 C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from the re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that, on 04.09.2013, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR (Ext. Ka. 4) through her written information (Ext. Ka. 1) that the appellant, a monk, was residing in Kaushalya Devi Temple, located at village Hudaiti. She had gone to the said temple one year ago to attend the religious function “Jagar”. Appellant applied vibhuti on her and then committed rape with her. Appellant made her video during the said incident. After showing the said video and threatening her, he used to commit rape on her regularly. 3. The First Information Report was registered at 14:10 hrs. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She was medically examined. Two mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest. The said two mobile phones were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Session. 5. The charges under Sections 376, 506, 468 IPC and Section 66 C read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were framed. The said two mobile phones were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Session. 5. The charges under Sections 376, 506, 468 IPC and Section 66 C read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were framed. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined altogether fourteen witnesses. 7. The written information (Ext. Ka. 1) was written by Kamal Kishore (PW1) at the behest of the prosecutrix. 8. The prosecution witness PW2 is the prosecutrix. 9. Kamal Upreti (PW3) and Shekhar Upreti (PW6) are residents of the prosecutrix’s village. According to Kamal Upreti, the prosecutrix told him that the appellant had raped her and used to rape her continuously by showing obscene photos on his mobile phone, and, as per Shekhar Upreti, the prosecutrix had told him that the appellant used to do wrong acts with her. 10. The prosecution witness Dr. Tara Baseda (PW4) is a Medical Officer. 11. The prosecution’s witness PW5 is the minor son and PW7 is the minor daughter of the prosecutrix. 12. Constable Prakash Ram (PW8) is the scriber of the First Information Report (Ext. Ka. 4). 13. Sub-Inspector Vijaya (PW9) and the Investigating Officer G.P. Bonthiyal (PW14) arrested the appellant on 04.09.2013 at 17:30 hrs from the Ghat Road Jakh, Puran Tiraha and while arresting him, two mobile phones were recovered from his possession. 14. The ID of the SIM cards of the mobile phones, recovered from the possession of the appellant, was taken by Sub-Inspector Dharmveer Solanki (PW10). 15. The prosecution’s witness Madan Chandra Joshi (PW11) and Jugal Kishore Bhatt (PW13) are shopkeepers. 16. The SIM cards recovered from the appellant’s mobile phones were kept on surveillance by constable Lalit Kumar (PW12). 17. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. However, he has suggested the prosecutrix in her cross-examination that their physical relations were consensual. He has also suggested to her that she used to call him to her house. The prosecutrix has accepted his suggestion in her cross-examination that he had lent Rs.2500/- to her to buy a cow. 18. However, he has suggested the prosecutrix in her cross-examination that their physical relations were consensual. He has also suggested to her that she used to call him to her house. The prosecutrix has accepted his suggestion in her cross-examination that he had lent Rs.2500/- to her to buy a cow. 18. Learned Trial Court heard the arguments, appreciated the evidence and held that the prosecution has been successful to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. Heard Mr. A.V. Pundir, learned Amicus Curiae with Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for State. 20. Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate has, inter alia, made the following submissions:- (i) The prosecutrix was a married woman; (ii) No obscene video or photo has been produced by the prosecution; (iii) The testimony of the prosecutrix is inconsistent, uncorroborated by the medical evidence and the electronic evidence, and, (iv) The mandatory certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been produced by the Investigating Officer. 21. Per contra, Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the recovered mobile phones were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, therefore, there was no need to file a certificate as mentioned under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 22. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction for rape. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 nowhere says that the evidence of the victim of rape cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is found to be true and reliable. As per the appellant, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 23. In the present matter, it has to be ascertained that whether the appellant had committed the rape or there was consensual relationship between them. 24. To arrive at a conclusion as to whether the alleged rape took place or not the statements of the prosecutrix (PW2) and the Medical Officer (PW4) need to be examined in detail. 25. According to the prosecutrix (PW2), a married woman of the age about 35 years and having two children, has deposed on 18.09.2014 that there was a temple of Kaushalya Devi in her village. 25. According to the prosecutrix (PW2), a married woman of the age about 35 years and having two children, has deposed on 18.09.2014 that there was a temple of Kaushalya Devi in her village. The said temple was located in the forest. Appellant, a Baba (Monk), used to reside in that temple for eight to nine years before lodging the First Information Report. One year before from the lodging the First Information Report, there was a Bhagwat Katha in that temple. She also went to join that Katha. She was working as a Bhojan Mata in a school at that time. In those days, her husband used to do private job in Ghaziabad. She was residing in her parental house. Appellant had applied vibhuti on her and gave some prasad. That day she came back to her house with other persons. The next day, she went to feed goats in the forest. She went to Kaushalya Devi Temple. Appellant had put vibhuti on her and gave her two bananas. She was laughing continuously after putting vibhuti and eating bananas. Appellant misbehaved with her. One day after that incident, the appellant showed her a picture on his mobile phone. According to that picture, his private part was in her mouth. 26. The prosecutrix (PW2) further stated that the appellant had threatened her that if she did not have a physical relationship with him, he would make that picture viral on the internet and would send that picture to her husband. Under that threat, he committed rape on her. After that incident, the appellant committed rape on her three to four times in Kaushalya Devi temple by showing that pornographic pictures. He used to tell her to keep door of her house open at 10-11 at night as he would reach her house. She further stated that he raped her six to seven times at her house. 27. As per the prosecution witness (PW5), the minor son of the prosecutrix, and, the witness (PW7), the minor daughter of the prosecutrix, the appellant used to come to their house in the night when their father was not at home and he (appellant) used to leave their house before morning. 28. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant used to rape the prosecutrix by showing her pornographic pictures on his mobile phone. 29. 28. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant used to rape the prosecutrix by showing her pornographic pictures on his mobile phone. 29. According to the prosecution, the appellant was arrested on 04.09.2013 and at the time of his arrest two mobile phones of “Samsung” were recovered from his possession. Out of the said recovered mobile phones, the model of one mobile phone of “Samsung” was GT-C3322 having SSN-C3322GSMH along with one SIM card of Tata Docomo Number 9045882989 and the model of the other mobile phone of “Samsung” was GT-E2232 having IMEI Numbers 358319/04/187362/3 and 358320/04/187362/1 along with one SIM card of Airtel having number 9897473567 and one SIM card of Idea having SIM Number 8449796036. The said mobile phone was having a chip. The prosecution case is that at the time of the said recovery, four obscene videos were found in the chip of the mobile phone of “Samsung” model GT-C3322, having SIM card of Tata Docomo Number 9045882989. 30. According to the appellant, neither the mobile phone of “Samsung” model GT-C3322, having SIM card No.9045882989 of Tata Docomo was recovered from his possession nor did it belong to him. The case of the appellant is that he was not arrested from the Ghat Road Jakh, Puran Tiraha. He was brought from the temple. 31. Mr. A.V. Pundir, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, argued that the alleged recovery becomes suspicious even in the light of the statement of Sub-Inspector Vijya (PW-9). According to the Sub-Inspector Vijya (PW-9), she was a member of the arresting party. She stated in her cross-examination that General Diary of leaving the police station on the day the appellant was arrested, has not been produced. The prosecution has not given any explanation as to why the said General Diary has not been produced. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that no public witness was taken by the police in the alleged recovery proceedings despite the alleged recovery was made on National Highway. Sub-Inspector Vijya (PW-9) has stated that in spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. She further stated that efforts were made to find out the names and addresses of those who refused to give evidence, but the recovery memo does not mention that names and addresses of those who refused to give evidence were asked. Sub-Inspector Vijya (PW-9) has stated that in spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. She further stated that efforts were made to find out the names and addresses of those who refused to give evidence, but the recovery memo does not mention that names and addresses of those who refused to give evidence were asked. Therefore, in the light of the evidence, available on record, the alleged recovery becomes suspicious. 32. The prosecution has examined Constable Lalit Kumar (PW-12). Constable Lalit Kumar (PW-12) has stated that he had checked the SIM card No.9045882989 of Tata Docomo on surveillance, then it came to know that that SIM was issued in the name of one Madan Chandra son of Laxmi Dutt r/o Village Dhari Dhamod, Post Ancholi, District Pithoragarh. The said Madan Chandra Joshi (PW-11) has been examined by the prosecution. 33. Madan Chandra Joshi (PW-11) has stated on 27.07.2015 that two-and – a half year ago he had filled a form to get SIM of Tata Docomo from the shop of Jugal Kishore Bhatt. According to this witness, the SIM of Tata Docomo could not get him. In this regard, shopkeeper Jugal Kishore Bhatt told him that the photo on his form did not match with the photo on his voter card. He further stated that he had not received his form and his photo back. 34. Jugal Kishore Bhatt (PW-13) also stated that Madan Chandra Joshi had given a xerox copy of his voter card and a photograph in the month of September or October, 2011 to get a SIM of Tata Docomo from his shop. He further stated that the said photograph did not match with the photograph on his voter card, therefore, he could not get the SIM of Tata Docomo. He stated that he cannot tell from which ID, the fake SIM of Madan Chandra Joshi was made. Madan Chandra Joshi (PW-11) also stated that the SIM, having number 9045882989 was issued to someone else by putting his photo on his voter card. It has been stated by both Madan Chandra Joshi (PW-11) and Jugal Kishore Bhatt (PW-13) that they saw the appellant for the first time in the court premises. 35. Madan Chandra Joshi (PW-11) also stated that the SIM, having number 9045882989 was issued to someone else by putting his photo on his voter card. It has been stated by both Madan Chandra Joshi (PW-11) and Jugal Kishore Bhatt (PW-13) that they saw the appellant for the first time in the court premises. 35. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had taken obscene photographs of the prosecutrix in his mobile phone and after showing which he used to repeatedly commit rape on the prosecutrix. At the time of his arrest four obscene videos were found in the chip of the mobile phone of “Samsung” model GT-C3322, having SIM card of Tata Docomo number 9045882989. 36. During the hearing of this Appeal, on 02.09.2021, a compact disc in an envelope was produced before this Court by the prosecution through the kotwali police, Pithoragarh. It was stated on behalf of the State that the said compact disc was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. On opening the said envelope at bar, two mobile phones were found in it. No obscene video or any obscene photo was found in it. 37. In Bhagwan Singh and others vs. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case 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 of his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. 38. It is also a basic rule of the criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved.” In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be true” and “must be true”, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. 39. In a Criminal Case, the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. On a detailed examination and scrutiny of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, it is considered view of this Court that the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, he deserves benefit of doubt. 40. As a result, this Court accepts the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 41. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2014, “State Vs. Mahant Digamber Tejgiri alias Mauni Baba alias Tarsaim Singh” is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC, Section 506 part II IPC, Section 471 IPC read with Section 465 IPC and Section 66 C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 42. Appellant is in judicial custody. He is ordered to be released forthwith. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Superintendent of District Jail, Haridwar for necessary compliance.