JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 02.08.2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 08-ST/7 of 2014, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted from the charges under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under: 2(a). The minor victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) was living with her parents at village Majra and she received a call from the accused on the mobile phone of her brother and the accused disclosed that he loved her and wanted to marry her. The prosecutrix refused to marry the accused owing to different religion. Subsequently, on 27.10.2013 the accused sent a girl with muffled face, who gave a mobile phone to the prosecutrix and on 29.10.2013, on that mobile phone, the accused directed the prosecutrix to accompany him. On 29.10.2013 again a girl with muffled face came to the house of the prosecutrix and she took her to a place where waste material was disposed of by the family of the prosecutrix and the accused was already present there with his scooty. The accused made the prosecutrix to sit on his scooty at the point of knife and took her to Chandigarh, where she was kept in two hotels for some days. After some days, the accused hired a room in the house of Piara Singh where he committed rape with the prosecutrix.The accused took the prosecutrix to a temple, where he solemnized marriage with her at the point of knife and also got the photographs clicked. The prosecutrix was made to sign some blank papers by the accused, which were later on converted into some documents. Subsequently, the prosecutrix managed to escape from the custody of the accused and she contacted her brother on phone. The police alongwith the brother of the prosecutrix came to a park at Chandigarh, where her custody was handed over to her brother. Subsequently, the prosecutrix managed to escape from the custody of the accused and she contacted her brother on phone. The police alongwith the brother of the prosecutrix came to a park at Chandigarh, where her custody was handed over to her brother. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities, viz., spot maps were prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded, apt recoveries were effected, prosecutrix as well as the accused were got medically examined and record qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix was obtained. After completion of the investigation, police presented the chargesheet before the Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court took cognizance against the accused and charges under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were framed against him. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined seventeen witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 02.08.2014 acquitted the accused, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 5. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned vice counsel for the accused/respondent and carefully examined the entire records. 6. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the Trial Court has ignored the relevant material and not appreciated the statements of the witnesses in its right perspective. The learned Trial Court took a hyper technical view and the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, thus liable to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Conversely, the learned vice counsel for the accused/respondent contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. She further contended that there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Further, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 9. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seventeen witnesses, however, its case mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1 (prosecutrix), PW-2 (brother of the prosecutrix), PW-3 Piara Singh, PW-4 (mother of the prosecutrix), PW-5 Surinder Kumar, PW-6 Dr. Daljeet Kaur, PW-9 Mohammad Harun and PW-10 Dharmender Kumar. 10. PW-1 (prosecutrix) deposed that she received call on the mobile of her brother from the accused, who told her that he was in love with her. She further deposed that she told the accused that she was Muslim and accused was Hindu, so due to different religions, their marriage was not possible and his proposal was not acceptable to her. She deposed that the accused threatened her and told her that on 27.10.2013 a girl would come with a mobile. As per the prosecutrix, on 27.10.2013 a girl with muffled face came to her and gave her a mobile phone and when she asked about her identity, that girl slapped her on her face. She further deposed that on 29.10.2013 that girl again came and took her to the place where they used to dispose of the waste material and the accused was already there with his scooty. She also deposed that the accused at the point of knife directed her to accompany him and he took her to Chandigarh, where they stayed in a hotel for 3-4 days. Thereafter, she was shifted to another hotel and was kept there for 5-6 days. She also deposed that the accused at the point of knife directed her to accompany him and he took her to Chandigarh, where they stayed in a hotel for 3-4 days. Thereafter, she was shifted to another hotel and was kept there for 5-6 days. She further deposed that accused had hired a room at Chandigarh and they stayed there and during their stay, the accused performed sexual intercourse with her. The accused made to dress her in a pink saaree, like a bride, and took her to a temple, where photographs were clicked at the point of knife. As per the prosecutrix, she was taken to an office, where her signatures were taken on a blank paper. She deposed that she fled away from the room in the absence of the accused and reached in a park and contacted her brother on phone, who reached the spot and took her back to Majra. As per the prosecutrix, her brother was accompanied by the police and her custody was handed over to her bother. She also deposed that a bed sheet from a room at Chandigarh was taken into possession by the police and she was produced before a doctor, who medically examined her. Doctor took into possession her clothes, Ex. P2 to P6 and she was produced before learned JMIC Nahan, where her statement was recorded. 11. PW-2 (brother of the prosecutrix) deposed that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was 15-16 years old. On 29.10.2013 his father went to work in the factory and came back at 04:00 p.m. and at that time the prosecutrix was missing. He further deposed that thereafter the prosecutrix was searched intensively and parents of the accused told that the accused was also missing and they would return soon. This witness also deposed that on 17.11.2023, the accused contacted him on phone and he went with the police to Chandigarh and the prosecutrix was brought back. 12. PW-3 Piara Singh, the owner of House No. 1956, in Sector 45-B, Chandigarh deposed that last year the accused and the prosecutrix came to his house and they hired a room in his building for monthly rent of Rs.2500/-. He further deposed that they paid him advance rent of Rs.1500/-. They stayed in his house for 2-3 days and thereafter police apprehended them on 17.11.2013. He further deposed that they paid him advance rent of Rs.1500/-. They stayed in his house for 2-3 days and thereafter police apprehended them on 17.11.2013. He also deposed that during the investigation, police visited his house along with the accused and the prosecutrix and in his presence, police took into possession a bed sheet, Ex. P1, vide memo, Ex. PW-1/A.This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that when the accused and the prosecutrix visited his house, the prosecutrix was wearing the dress of newly wedded girl and she was happy. He admitted that the prosecutrix had disclosed herself as a bride of the accused and she did not make any complaint against the accused that he had kidnapped her. 13. PW-4 (mother of the prosecutrix) deposed that out of her four sons and four daughters, the prosecutrix was youngest and was 16 years old. She further deposed that the prosecutrix was living with her father at Majra. As per this witness, her husband informed her on telephone that the prosecutrix was missing. The prosecutrix was recovered from Chandigarh and she met the prosecutrix and on being asked, she told her that she was forcibly taken to Chandigarh and besides this,she did not disclose anything. This witness had not supported the case of prosecution and had turned hostile. She was cross-examined at length by the learned Public Prosecutor, but nothing favourable could be elicited from her lengthy cross-examination. 14. Surinder Kumar Manager, Hotel Maharaja, Sector 45- B, Chandigarh, appeared in the witness-box as PW-5 and deposed that during the investigation, accused got identified room No. 105, in which he had stayed alongwith the prosecutrix. He further deposed that accused had hired the room on 11.01.2013 and checked out on 12.01.2013 and entries in this regard were incorporated in the hotel register, extract of which is Ex.PW-5/A, which he handed over to the police. He also deposed that during the investigation, he handed over the extract of the register, Ex.PW-5/A, to the police, vide memo, Ex. PW-5/B. Demarcation memo, Ex. PW-5/C, was also prepared by the police in his presence. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that when the accused had checked in the hotel, at that time a girl was accompanying him who was identified as his wife. PW-5/B. Demarcation memo, Ex. PW-5/C, was also prepared by the police in his presence. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that when the accused had checked in the hotel, at that time a girl was accompanying him who was identified as his wife. He admitted that at the time of checking in the hotel, the girl was happy and during their stay in the hotel, the girl did not make any complaint to the hotel staff. 15. Dr. Daljeet Kaur, who medically examined the prosecutrix, appeared in the witness-box as PW-6, and deposed that no injury marks were present on the private parts as well as other parts of the body of the prosecutrix. She had issued MLC, Ex. PW-6/B and after receipt of report of FSL, Ex.PW-6/C, she gave her final opinion. 16. PW-9, Mohammad Harun, the then Headmaster, Primary School (school of the prosecutrix) deposed that on 24.12.2013 he issued copy of school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix, Ex. PW-9/A, and copy of admission register, Ex. PW- 9/B, to the police. As per this witness, the prosecutrix was admitted in the school by her mother on 17.05.2003 in 1 st Class and at the instance of her mother, her date of birth was recorded. He further deposed that as per the records, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 20.05.1998. PW-10, Dharmender Kumar, the then Gram Vikas Adhikari (of the area where the prosecutrix was born), deposed that he was associated by the police in the investigation on 24.12.2013 and on that day he had issued birth certificate, Ex. PW-10/A, of the prosecutrix and also extract of pariwar register, Ex. PW-10/B, qua the family of the father of the prosecutrix. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that the entry qua the prosecutrix in the pariwar register was made by him on 28.11.2013. 17. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record & after close scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence, it has become clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 18. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW-1 (prosecutrix), PW-2 (brother of the prosecutrix) and PW-4 (mother of the prosecutrix). The prosecutrix, in her deposition, deposed that her age was 15 plus. 18. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW-1 (prosecutrix), PW-2 (brother of the prosecutrix) and PW-4 (mother of the prosecutrix). The prosecutrix, in her deposition, deposed that her age was 15 plus. The brother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) deposed that the age of the prosecutrix was about 15/16 years, whereas, the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-4) deposed that the prosecutrix was 16 years old. However none of them have stated the exact date of birth of the prosecutrix. PW-9, Headmaster, Primary School (name withheld) deposed that he issued copy of school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix, Ex. PW-9/A, and copy of admission register, Ex. PW-9/B and as per the record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 20.05.1998. However, he feigned ignorance as to who had reported the date of birth of the prosecutrix. He further deposed that the signatures of the mother of the prosecutrix were not obtained on the register. PW-10, Gram Vikas Adhikari (of the area where the prosecutrix was born) deposed that he issued birth certificate of the prosecutrix Ex. PW-10/A and extract of pariwar register Ex. PW-10/B. However, both these documents cannot be relied upon, because as per extract of pariwar register Ex.PW- 10/B, a son was born to the father of the prosecutrix, whose date of birth has been recorded as 12.02.1998 and thereafter the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded as 20.05.1998. It is highly improbable that the prosecutrix was born after about three months from the date, when his brother was born on 12.02.1998. Moreover, PW-10 admitted that he had entered the date of birth of the prosecutrix on 28.11.2013, after the registration of the case against the accused. Therefore, the possibility of manipulation in the entry regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out. There is also contradiction in the documentary evidence, because as per Ex. PW-9/A and Ex. PW-9/B, the prosecutrix was born on 02.05.1998, whereas as per Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW- 10/B, the prosecutrix was born on 20.05.1998. In fact, no cogent and satisfactory evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the exact age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, In the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the alleged incident. 19. PW- 10/B, the prosecutrix was born on 20.05.1998. In fact, no cogent and satisfactory evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the exact age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, In the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the alleged incident. 19. It is a settled position of law that the statement of prosecutrix can be the sole basis for conviction unless there are cogent reasons for the Court to be hesitant in believing the statement at its face value or to seek corroboration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ali @ Guddu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 272 has held as under :- "29. Be it noted, there can be no iota of doubt that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable and beyond reproach, a conviction can be based. In the case at hand, the learned Trial Judge as well as the High Court have persuaded themselves away with this principle without appreciating the acceptability and reliability of the testimony of the witness. In fact, it would not be appropriate to say that whatever the analysis in the impugned judgment, it would only indicate an impropriety of approach. The prosecutrix has deposed that she was taken from one place to the other and remained at various houses for almost two months. The only explanation given by her is that she was threatened by the accused persons. It is not in her testiony that she was confined to one place. In fact, it has been borne out from the material on record that she had travelled from place to place and she was ravished a number of times. Under these circumstances, the medical evidence gains significance, for the examining doctor has categorically deposed that there are no injuries on the private parts. The delay in FIR, the non-examination of the witnesses, the testimony of the prosecutrix, the associated circumstances and the medical evidence, leave a mark of doubt to treat the testimony of the prosecutrix as so natural and truthful to inspire confidence. It can be stated with certitude that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not of such quality which can be placed reliance upon." 20. It can be stated with certitude that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not of such quality which can be placed reliance upon." 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. vs. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny (2017) 2 SCC 51 held as under:- "30…...We have already discussed above the manner in which the testimony of the prosecutrix is to be examined and analysed in order to find out the truth therein and to ensure that deposition of the victim is trustworthy. At the same time, after taking all due precautions which are necessary, when it is found that the prosecution version is worth believing, the case is to be dealt with all sensitivity that is needed in such cases…….. 31…….By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime………." 21. In Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2018 SC 3976 , it has been held in paras 23 and 24 as under: "23. The evidence of the victim/prosecutrix and the Aunt P.W.10 are unreliable, untrustworthy inasmuch as they are not credible witnesses. In Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2018 SC 3976 , it has been held in paras 23 and 24 as under: "23. The evidence of the victim/prosecutrix and the Aunt P.W.10 are unreliable, untrustworthy inasmuch as they are not credible witnesses. Their evidence bristles with contradictions and is full of improbabilities. We cannot resist ourselves to place on record that the prosecution has tried to rope in the appellant merely on assumption, surmises and conjectures. The story of the prosecution is built on the materials placed on record, which seems to be neither the truth, nor wholly the truth. The findings of the court below, though concurrent, do not desire the merit of acceptance or approval in our hands with regard to the glaring infirmities and illegalities vitiating them, and the patent errors apparent on the face of record resulting in serious and grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant. 24. We find that the trial court and the High Court have convicted the accused merely on conjectures and surmises. The Courts have come to the conclusion based on assumptions and not on legally acceptable evidence, but such assumptions were not well founded, inasmuch as such assumptions are not corroborated by any reliable evidence. Medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution relating to offence of rape." 22. Now, reverting back to the statement of the prosecutrix in the instant case. The learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the following contradictions and omissions, which emerged out of the testimony of the prosecutrix: 1. The prosecutrix talked to the accused on the mobile phone of her brother. However, she had not disclosed this fact to her brother PW-2; 2. She stated that some girl with muffled face had handed her over mobile phone on 27.10.2013 and when she enquired about her identity she was slapped. Thereafter again that girl had come on 29.10.2013 with muffled face and took her to the place where the accused was already present. However, this fact was not recorded in her statement Ex.DA and she had improved this fact in the Court. Moreover no investigation was made about this girl; 3. The prosecutrix accompanied accused to Chandigarh on a scooty and admittedly she crossed so many densely populated places and even Police Post also, but she never raised any alarm of her kidnapping by the accused; 4. Moreover no investigation was made about this girl; 3. The prosecutrix accompanied accused to Chandigarh on a scooty and admittedly she crossed so many densely populated places and even Police Post also, but she never raised any alarm of her kidnapping by the accused; 4. She was kept in two hotels and thereafter she remained in a rented house of PW-3. She had opportunities to protest but she never companied to any person about her kidnapping and forcible sexual intercourse; 5. She admitted her presence in photographs Exts. D1 to D7 where she was present in a temple and marriage ceremonies were performed. The perusal of photographs shows that her marriage was performed with her own consent; 6. She also executed affidavits Ext.D8 to Ext D10 before Notary Public at Chandigarh. She sworn these affidavits before Notary Public. However, she had not made any complaint to any of the persons at the time of execution of these affidavits; 7. She has taken the plea that she had to do all this since she was threatened at the point of knife. However, the story of the prosecution is totally unbelievable. No such knife has been recovered by the police; & 8. She stated that she fled away from the room of the accused and contacted her brother from the mobile phone of someone. However, PW-2 her brother totally contradicted her testimony and stated that accused had contacted him from his mobile phone. 23. After the perusal of the entire evidence, we are of the considered view that if the statement of the prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of the circumstances along with other evidence on record, her deposition does not inspire confidence. It has come in the statement of the prosecutrix that she went with the accused on his scooty and travelled from her village to Chandigarh, i.e., more than 100 kms and she must have crossed number of populated area and police post(s), but she did not raise any hue and cry qua her kidnapping. She also stayed in two hotels, where also she did not raise any alarm qua her alleged kidnapping and forcible sexual intercourse by the accused. Shri Surinder Kumar (PW-5), Manager of one of the hotels, categorically deposed that the prosecutrix had identified herself as the wife of the accused and when they (accused and the prosecutrix) checked in, she was happy. Shri Surinder Kumar (PW-5), Manager of one of the hotels, categorically deposed that the prosecutrix had identified herself as the wife of the accused and when they (accused and the prosecutrix) checked in, she was happy. Similarly, Shri Piara Singh (PW-3) the owner of house at Chandigarh also deposed that the prosecutrix was happy and she herself had disclosed that she was wife of the accused. Even the Investigating Officer (PW- 16) deposed that the house of the prosecutrix was situated in a densely populated locality and police post Majra was only 10 feet away from her house, therefore it was quite impossible to kidnap the prosecutrix. The photographs, Ex. D8 to D10 also depict that the accused and the prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with each other. The possibility that the prosecutrix had eloped with the accused and married him, out of her free will and consent, cannot be ruled out. As the prosecutrix and the accused belonged to different religions, it is possible that the accused had been thoughtfully roped in a false and cooked up case. Thus, on a careful analysis of the testimony of the prosecutrix, we find a large number of contradictions, inconsistencies and embellishments which cast a shadow of doubt and led us to find it difficult to rely upon her testimony. There is no doubt that rape causes great distress and humiliation to the victim of rape but at the same time false allegation of committing a rape also causes humiliation and damage to the accused. An accused has also rights which are to be protected and the possibility of false implication has to be ruled out. The Supreme Court in Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 4704 had in this context noted as follows:- "5.....The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a person has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case." 24. There have also been rare instances where a person has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case." 24. In Abbas Ahmed Choudhary Versus State of Assam, (2010) 12 SCC 115 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para-11 that:- "11.We are conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully." 25. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as such no interference in the judgment of acquittal dated 02.08.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., is required, as the same is the result of proper appreciation of evidence and law. The appeal, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.