JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.02.1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.53/1992 (20/90) by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo five yeas’ R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months’ R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.1989, Mst. ‘P’ submitted a report at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, inter-alia alleging therein that her family members are traditional story-tellers. On 25.11.1989, she along with family members went to Khudera Chota for story-telling. Late at night, at about 3 AM, when she woke up for answering the call of nature, the accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh caught hold of her and committed rape upon her. On raising hue and cry, some people came to her rescue, upon which, the accused-appellant fled away. Counsel further argued that the medical evidence also contradicts the prosecutrix’s account, which claims that a rape was committed for two-three hours. Despite this the trial Judge rejected the prosecutrix’s account and concluded that the rape was committed. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the FIR against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 376 of IPC was framed by the trial court against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twelve prosecution witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 27.02.1993 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 376 of IPC as mentioned earlier. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a false case has been lodged against the appellant and there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of prosecutrix ‘P’ (PW.1) so also in the statements of other witnesses, viz., Bidami (PW.2), Sharwan (PW.3), Mala Ram (PW.4), Kumbha Ram (PW.5). 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a false case has been lodged against the appellant and there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of prosecutrix ‘P’ (PW.1) so also in the statements of other witnesses, viz., Bidami (PW.2), Sharwan (PW.3), Mala Ram (PW.4), Kumbha Ram (PW.5). Further, witness Deepa Ram (PW- 10) has also been declared hostile. Counsel submits that during cross-examination, prosecutrix mentioned that for about 2-3 hours, the appellant kept his hand on her mouth and committed rape with her, which is implausible. Counsel further submits that according to the FIR, there is over-writing on the name of accused-appellant, thus, the identity of the accused-appellant has not been known and the accused-appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. The statement of Dr. Bhanwar Lal has been recorded as (PW.6) before the trial court and in his statement, he mentioned that no injury was found on the body (including private parts) of the prosecutrix and also no fresh discharge was found on her body. According to statement of Anup Singh (PW.9), he deposited the samples before the FSL, Jaipur and during cross-examination, he admitted that no seal was put on the articles, thus, the samples were not in an intact position, till they reached for FSL. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same lacks, amongst other, appreciation of the evidence available on record, for the purpose of charging and convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC in particular. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. Thus, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference from this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence, as also the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant. 9. From perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that prosecutrix (PW.1) in her statement has alleged that accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh caught hold of her and committed rape with her. 9. From perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that prosecutrix (PW.1) in her statement has alleged that accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh caught hold of her and committed rape with her. However, the span of time during which the incident alleged to have happened against the complainant is also highly improbable. So, the whole story of the prosecution is open to question about the veracity of prosecutrix’s testimony. Upon perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is over-writing in the name of accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh, therefore, the identification of the accused is quite doubtful. According to the statement of prosecutrix (PW.1), there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in her statement so also the statements of other witnesses are also contradictory to each other. The statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. She did not raise any hue & cry and when the accused caught hold of her. Since, their conduct does not commensurate with her testimony. This question also came for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT Delhi reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 , the Apex Court has observed that: “In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3780/2018 reported in AIR 2020 SC 985 has observed as under: “6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall Accused came inside and thereafter the Accused committed rape. She has stated that she identified the Accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall Accused came inside and thereafter the Accused committed rape. She has stated that she identified the Accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even nothing is on record that there was a broken compound wall. She has further stated that in the morning at 10 O'clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1 and others. However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5-prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of "sterling witness". There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the prosecutrix-PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant and Accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.” 11. The prosecutrix (PW.1) in her statement has categorically admitted that she did not sustain any injury on her body. Even according to statement of Doctor, no injury was found on the body parts of the prosecutrix. 12. The carrier Anup Singh (PW-9) has mentioned in his statement that the articles were not properly sealed when they were sent to FSL and the FSL report does not corroborate the fact that the accused appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix. Thus, it shows that the samples were not intact. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2014 (1) ACR 321 (SC), has observed that: “10. Thus, it shows that the samples were not intact. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2014 (1) ACR 321 (SC), has observed that: “10. Faced with such a situation, we were anxious to find out whether there can be any clinching medical evidence suggesting rape, but, unfortunately, the prosecution has failed to examine Dr. Anjali Shah, who had examined the prosecutrix. The MLR was produced in the court by PW-6 J.B. Bhardwaj, Medical Record Technician. This is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. We are aware that lapses on the part of the prosecution should not lead to unmerited acquittals. This is, however, subject to the rider that in such a situation the evidence on record must be clinching so that the lapses of the prosecution could be condoned. Such is not the case here. The MLR does suggest that the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn. It is also true that the prosecution has brought on record FSL Report which shows that human semen was detected on the salwar of the prosecutrix and on the underwear of the accused. However, it is difficult to infer from this that the prosecutrix was raped by the Appellant. The prosecutrix herself has vacillated on this aspect. It was pointed out that no injuries were found on the prosecutrix. We do not attach much importance to this aspect because presence of injuries is not a must to prove commission of rape. But the prosecutrix's evidence is so infirm that it deserves to be rejected. Her brother has come out with a case that the Appellant tried to rape the prosecutrix. He did not say that the Appellant raped the prosecutrix. Taking ah overall view of the matter, we find it difficult to sustain the prosecution case that the prosecutrix was raped by the Appellant. This is a case where the Appellant must be given benefit of doubt.” 14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Manak Chand @ Mani Vs. The State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.2278/2014 reported in AIR 2023 SC 5600 has observed that: “......Secondly, we cannot lose sight of the fact that since age was such a crucial factor in the present case, the prosecution should have done a bone ossification test for determination of the age of the prosecutrix. The State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.2278/2014 reported in AIR 2023 SC 5600 has observed that: “......Secondly, we cannot lose sight of the fact that since age was such a crucial factor in the present case, the prosecution should have done a bone ossification test for determination of the age of the prosecutrix. This has not been done in the present case. On the other hand, as per the clinical examination of the prosecutrix which was done by PW-1, Dr. Kulwinder Kaur on 28.10.2000 and which has also been referred to in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment, we find that the secondary sex characteristics of the prosecutrix were well developed. The doctor in her report mentions that the prosecutrix is a "well built adult female". At another place it mentions "well developed pubic hair" and "external genitalia were fully developed and normal". It then records her age as sixteen years as told to her by the mother of the prosecutrix. The report records that there were no external marks of injury over her breast, neck, face, abdomen and thigh. The report then concludes, inter alia, about her age as under: “At the time of medical examination of the patient, no force seems to have been used against her. I cannot opine about the age of the patient on the basis of development of her pubic hairs and genitalia etc. The patient was habitual to sexual intercourse because her labia minora was hypertrophied and hymen admitted two fingers.” ..... 11. Under these facts, and on the weight of the evidence placed before the Trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that as regarding the age of the prosecutrix, no definite conclusion could have been made. The prosecution has not successfully proved that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, and therefore the benefit ought to have been given to the Appellant. Secondly, as to the factum of rape itself, we are not convinced that an offence of rape is made out in this case as it does not meet the ingredients of Rape as defined Under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, as we do not find any evidence which may suggest that the Appellant, even though had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, it was against her will or without her consent.” 15. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Raj. vs. Chinderpal Singh and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.12/2012), vide order dated 09.02.2012 reported in 2012 (3) ILR (Raj) 237, also observed as follows: “8. A bare perusal of the tall tale narrated by the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) clearly raises a doubt about the veracity of her testimony. For, while she claimed that she was ravished by Billu and Buta Singh, she kept on roaming around with them. Similarly, from 12 O'clock in the afternoon till night, she accompanied her alleged rapists. They had tea at a hotel, yet she did not raise any hue and cry about the fact that she had been ravished by all of them. Since, her conduct does not commensurate with her testimony, the learned Judge had no other option but to seek corroboration from other evidence. 9. The learned Judge has noticed the fact that recording to the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) she had suffered large number of injuries, both in the external and private parts of her body. According to her, these injuries were present for ten days. Yet, according to Dr. Vinod Kumar (P.W. 12), when he examined the prosecutrix on 13.10.2007, that is just three days after the alleged incident, he did not find any external injury on her body. Moreover, he did not find any injury on her private parts or internally in her private parts. According to him, the bleeding that he noticed was due to her menstrual cycle. The testimony of Dr. Vinod Kumar (P.W. 12) was further corroborated by Dr. Archana Bhansali (P.W. 14). Thus, there was no medical corroboration of the fact that she had been subjected to rape, and that she had suffered injuries on her body, while she was raped. Most importantly, according to both the doctors when they examined her, they found her behavior normal; she did not show any anxiety, any shock or disturbance due to the alleged gang rape.” 16. Most importantly, according to both the doctors when they examined her, they found her behavior normal; she did not show any anxiety, any shock or disturbance due to the alleged gang rape.” 16. It is true that in a case of sexual assault, the evidence of the victim is sufficient to bring the perpetrator to book, but in this case at hand as well as in the above judgment passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court, where the evidence of the prosecutrix is placed on a high pedestal, it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize it carefully and it is expected to assess the evidence of the prosecutrix with a balanced and fair approach, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the surrounding facts while the victim’s testimony may be given due weigh, it cannot be the sole testimony for conviction. However, this does not mean that the evidence is immune from scrutiny or that it should be unquestioningly accepted. The evidence of the doctor revealed absence of any injury on the private parts of the victim owing to the procedural lapses and the contradictions in the evidence, a benefit of doubt is liable to be extended to the appellant to ensure the justice. 17. In view of the above, I am of the firm opinion that the whole prosecution story is doubtful, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 18. Consequently, the criminal appeal is allowed. The imupugned judgment dated 27.02.1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.53/1992 (20/90) by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him for the said offence is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender forthwith, if not required in any other case. His bail bonds stand discharged. 19. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial Court within a period of one month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment, on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 20. 20. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.