JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. Since the aforesaid five criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Second Fast Track Special Court, Raipur, District Raipur in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.169/2018, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. Since the aforesaid five criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Second Fast Track Special Court, Raipur, District Raipur in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.169/2018, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have filed these five criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned dated 23.11.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Second Fast Track Special Court, Raipur, District Raipur in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.169/2018, by which appellant- Deepak Bhoi has been convicted for offences under Sections 376DA, 363, 366, 506 Part II and 376(3) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (for short (‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 10 months, RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months, RI for five years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months, RI for three years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months and RI for twenty years and fine of Rs.7000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months, appellants- Mohit Patel and Vishal Rao have been convicted for offences under Sections 376DA, 363, 366, 506 Part II and 109/376(3) of the IPC and Section 17 /4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 10 months, RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months, RI for five years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months, RI for three years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months and RI for twenty years and fine of Rs.7000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months and appellants Keshav Raj Yadav and Visheshpuri Goswami have been convicted for offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5.8.2018 at 23.30 P.M., the victim’s father (PW-5) lodged a report in Devendra Nagar Police Station to the efect that his daughter i.e. the minor went with her friend at 5 P.M. to City Center Mall, Pandari Raipur to celebrate friendship day. She was in contact till around 7 A.M. after which her daughter’s mobile got switched of and she has not returned home. When the minor did not return home, they went to City Center Mall, Pandari Raipur and found that the minor and one of her friend had not returned home while the other friends had gone back to their respective homes. The above information of kidnapping was registered against unknown person under Crime No.171/2018 at Devendra Nagar Police Station. On 6.8.2018, the minor and her friend came home and were brought to Devendra Nagar Police Station and after recovery, they were handed over to their family members. The investigating oicer recorded the recovery panchnama vide Ex.P-1 and also recorded the victim’s statement before the Child Welfare Committee on 7.8.2018 vide Ex.P-2. Thereafter on 9.8.2019 the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the Magistrate vide Ex.P-3. Vaginal slide of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-5. Birth certificate of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-6. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-7. Spot map was prepared by the investigating oicer vide Ex.P-8. Transfer certificate and bonafide certificate of the victim were seized vide Exs.P-13 and P-14. Dakhil-kharij register of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-17. Applicants Mohit Patel, Vishal Rao, Deepak Bhoi and Manish Sahu were arrested on 13.08.2018 vide arrest memos Exs.P-22 to 25 and applicants Keshav Raj Yadav and Visheshpuri Goswami were arrested on 21.9.2018 vide arrest memos Exs.P-26 and P-27. Seized vaginal slide was sent to FSL vide Ex.P-35 and as per FSL report (Ex.P-36), human sperm was found on vaginal slide seized from the victim. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Special Judge. The accused abjured the guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-36. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied guilt. 6. The accused abjured the guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-36. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied guilt. 6. The Special Judge upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record and relying upon testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1), by the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2020, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, these appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the case of the prosecution is per se unbelievable, incredible and illogical. The statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) would disclose that she is not a “sterling witness” or of a very high quality caliber, whose version should therefore be assailable enough for convict on her sole testimony. They further submit that the prosecutrix has narrated different incidents on both the statements which was recorded during the investigation, which is evident from Ex.P-1 recorded on 6.8.2018, a day after the alleged date of incident, wherein she has not disclosed that any offence was committed against her by the accused/appellants, which is corroborated under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.P-2). Even, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P-3) on 9.8.2018 before the Magistrate has not stated that any forcible sexual intercourse was committed on her by any of the appellants and no any incriminating statement has been given against anyone, under which the appellants can be held guilt of offences they are convicted with. It is an afterthought of the victim’s father / complainant (PW-5) who with an ulterior motive and inluenced by some political persons, after passing of two months of incident again recorded statement under Section 161 CrPC on 09.10.2018 (Ex.D-1) before the investigating oicer to falsely implicate the present appellants and the same is also evident from the deposition of Ku.Dipti Pandey (PW-2), Smt.Saraswati Pandey (PW-3) who have not supported the case of the prosecution and have deposed before the Court that no offence was committed against the victim or against her. Therefore, the inding recorded by the learned trial Court is highly erroneous and unsustainable. Therefore, the inding recorded by the learned trial Court is highly erroneous and unsustainable. They also submits the prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she had gone to Ku.Dipti (PW-2) voluntarily, therefore, offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC are not attracted. The prosecution has not brought anything on record to establish the age of the victim at the time of incident. Medical evidence is also doubtful because as per medical examination report (Ex.P- 16), there was no sign of injuries found on the body or the victim or in her private parts. Even it does not disclose the fact as there is no inding of a recent sexual intercourse to establish the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and POCSO Act. They contended that as per FSL report (Ex.P-36), though human sperm was found in vaginal slide, but to corroborate the same with the appellants, no further testing of DNA etc. have been done, which creates doubt on the prosecution story. Appellant-Deepak Bhoi in his statement under Section 313 CrPC has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant on behest of his neighbors who has enmity with him, and the contradictory statements given by the victims establish this fact, as such, the impugned judgment is bad in law. It is highly unbelievable that once the matter was before the investigating agency, then also the victim would not disclose the incident to the investigating agency or to the Child Welfare Committee and before the Magistrate. Therefore, deposition of the victim (PW-1) cannot be relied upon. As such, the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr.R.S.Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State, would support the impugned judgment and submit that statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is wholly reliable and trustworthy and her testimony inspires confidence. He further submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants which warrants no interference by this Court. 9. We have heard learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. As regards the complicity of the appellants in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1). 9. We have heard learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. As regards the complicity of the appellants in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1). In para 2 of her evidence, she has stated that Dipti Pandey was her classmate. Her age is around 13-14 years, date of incident is 05.08.2018. On that day, a birthday party was organized by Dipti Pandey at City Center Pandari. In para 3 she has stated that Dipti Pandey came to her house with her mother on the date of incident, then she along with Dipti Pandey had gone to City Center Pandari in her brother’s Activa with her mother Seema Panjwani’s mobile. At around 5.45 P.M. she, her classmate Komal along with her elder sister and Dipti Pandey reached City Center Mall, Pandari, Komal’s elder sister had left her and gone back. She, Dipti Pandey and Komal all three went inside the mall. Dipti Pandey had asked for her mobile, then Dipti Pandey went some distance away from her mobile and called someone on which accused Mohit and Vishal came there. In para 5 of her evidence, she has stated that Dipti Pandey introduced them to the accused (Mohit and Vishal). Dipti Pandey was roaming in the mall with accused Mohit, she was roaming in the mall with her friend Komal. Accused Vishal was roaming separately. During this time, she had her mobile phone, she received a call from her friend Gurpreet at the mall and told her that accused Vishal and Mohit were also there. In para 6, she has stated that after some time, while taking out the two wheeler from the parking of City Mall to go back home, Dipti Pandey said that she has not eaten anything and stated that let us go for marine drive. At that time, it was around 7.45 and 8 P.M. After that Dipti Pandey along with Mohit and she along with Vishal went to marine drive in the vehicle. During travelling, accused Mohit and Vishal told Dipti Pandey and her that their friend’s weeding was going on the side of PWD bridge and after meeting them, they would drop them back home. During travelling, accused Mohit and Vishal told Dipti Pandey and her that their friend’s weeding was going on the side of PWD bridge and after meeting them, they would drop them back home. After that, when accused Mohit and Vishal were taking Dipti Pandey and her to the weeding venue, vehicles were being checked near PWD Bride. At that time, motorcycle of accused Mohit was caught by the police. Then she told Dipti Pandey that it was too late, let us go back home. Then Dipti Pandey said that the accused would return home after getting Mohit’s motorcycle released. After this, accused Vishal and Mohit took Dipti Pandey and her to the house of mother of accused Deepak Bhoi. Meanwhile, Dipti Pandey was refusing to go back to her home, then Dipti Pandey started crying. Accused Deepak’s mother telling them that both of you should sleep here. When she refused to sleep there, accused Deepak’s mother scolded accused Mohit and Vishal and said that they should drop both of them back home, otherwise a police case could be filed. In para 8 of her evidence, she has deposed that when Dipti Pandey and she left accused Deepak’s house to go back home, accused Mohit snatched her Activa vehicle key and mobile and accused Mohit called accused Deepak, accused Deepak lived in the street opposite to PWD Bridge. The house was in a deserted place. Accused Deepak, Mohit and Vishal forcefully taken Dipti Pandey and her to the house at the said place, the remaining accused Manish Sahu, Keshav Raj Yadav and Vishesh Puri Goswami were already present in the said house. She started crying at that place saying that she had to go back to her house, then accused Vishal and Mohit went down and closed the channel gate. In para 9 of her evidence, she has stated that accused Deepak, Mohit and Vishal had kept her and Dipti Pandey sitting in the said place. Accused Vishal caught hold of her and starting dong wrong things. Accused Vishal hugged and kissed her. In para 9 of her evidence, she has stated that accused Deepak, Mohit and Vishal had kept her and Dipti Pandey sitting in the said place. Accused Vishal caught hold of her and starting dong wrong things. Accused Vishal hugged and kissed her. The remaining accused Manish Sahu, Keshav Raj Yadav, Vishesh Puri Goswami were driving two wheeler, when there was some fault in two wheeler, accused Vishal went below to repair the said two wheeler, then accused Deepak Bhoi came near her and started taking to her, threatened her and said that he is don of the place and no one can do anything to him. Accused Deepak forcefully raped her and thereafter threatened her not to tell anyone about it. 11. In para 17 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that the issue of rape came up in the statement two months later. She herself stated that Dipti, Mohit and Vishal had scared her a lot at night, the next day when she told Dipti that he will tell at home, Dipti said that Mohit, Vishal and their friends are scoundrels, they will kill her and that is why, she did not tell the incident to anyone. She has told this thing to the police for the first time in the statement, in the statement under Section 164 and in the last statement. If the above mentioned things are not mentioned in all the statements (Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.D-1), then she cannot tell the reason for the same. In para 36 of her cross-examination, she has stated that she has read and signed the statement of Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P-3). 12. The prosecutrix in her 164 CrPC statement has stated that she was staying in Class 8 th in Gyanganga School. Her elder brother Dheeraj Jawani is studying in Class 10 th . Dipti is her school friend. On that day, she and Dipti had gone to City Center Mall to celebrate Dipti’s birthday. Dipti’s mother was staying in her house. At City Center Mall, Dipti called boys named Vishal and Mohit from her mobile, Dipti knew them for about four months. Komal and Gurpreet had also come with them to celebrate the birthday. After some time, Komal and Gurpreet left from there. Dipti’s mother was staying in her house. At City Center Mall, Dipti called boys named Vishal and Mohit from her mobile, Dipti knew them for about four months. Komal and Gurpreet had also come with them to celebrate the birthday. After some time, Komal and Gurpreet left from there. After that, both the boys Vishal and Mohit took her and Dipti to Marine Drive, from there they told them that there was a wedding at their friend’s place and took them to the weeding house which is in Rajendra Nagar. At the weeding, they also met a boy named Deepak Nayak who was calling himself a don. After that the boys forcefully took them to Deepak’s house. Goldi, Deepak Raj, Manish, Vishal, Mohit were drinking alcohol there. Mohit was forcing himself on Dipti and Vishal was trying to force himself on her. Vishal was forcefully holding her hands and arms with bad intention and was kissing her. The boys had also snatched her mobile and vehicle’s key. At 5.00 in the morning, the boys left both of them at the railway station and threatened them that if they told anything to anyone, the accused would kill her and Dipti and would get them picked up wherever they were. He said that the police cannot do anything against them. 13. Another statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.D-1) was recorded after passing of two months on 09.10.2018 in which she has stated she is staying in Class 8 th in Gyanganga school. Dipti Pandey was studying in her class. Dipti’s birthday was on 4 th August, for which Deepti has invited her to a party in the City Center on 5 th August, so on 5 th August, Dipti came to her house with her parents and brought her mother to her house. They went to City Center where she met Komal who had come there with her sister, after some time Gurupreet came with her friend, at that time, Dipti asked for her mobile and she called Vishal and Mohit there and introduced Vishal and Mohit to her. She andAnother statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.D-1) was recorded after passing of two months on 09.10.2018 in which she has stated she is staying in Class 8 th in Gyanganga school. Dipti Pandey was studying in her class. She andAnother statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.D-1) was recorded after passing of two months on 09.10.2018 in which she has stated she is staying in Class 8 th in Gyanganga school. Dipti Pandey was studying in her class. Dipti’s birthday was on 4 th August, for which Deepti has invited her to a party in the City Center on 5 th August, so on 5 th August, Dipti came to her house with her parents and brought her mother to her house. They went to City Center where she met Komal who had come there with her sister, after some time Gurupreet came with her friend, at that time, Dipti asked for her mobile and she called Vishal and Mohit there and introduced Vishal and Mohit to her. She and Dipti reached City Center at around 5:00 in the evening. After reaching Vishal and Mohit at City Center, Dipti was roaming with Mohit and she and Komal were roaming together, then Vishal started following them, after sometime, Komal left the place, then she told Dipti that it was too late and they should go home, then Dipti said that they have not eaten anything till now, let us go to Marine Drive, then she, Dipti and Vishal along with Mohit went to marine drive around 8.15 P.M., but there was a lot of crowd, so Dipti said let us go from here and they all went to PWD bridge from where Vishal and Mohit started forcing themselves on her, then Dipti forced Mohit and her to sit in her vehicle and Vishal called one of his friends who took him to an aunt's (Deepak's mother) place in his two wheeler, then she started insisting her to go home but Dipti was not agreeing, then aunt asked them to sleep here, then Vishal and Mohit said that uncle is here, he will scold them, then Deepak, Mohit, Vishal and Manish took them to a deserted house where 2-3 boys were already drinking, then they took her and Dipti to the house where there was no light, then Dipti along with Mohit sat in a corner and Vishal started holding my hand forcefully, she screamed, after that Deepak came who was threatening her by calling himself a don and he forcefully raped her. When she was screaming, he tied her mouth again and again. When she was screaming, he tied her mouth again and again. After that they gave her the vehicle and they went to drop she and Dipti near the railway station and threatened her that if she tell anyone about this he will kill her, Mohit and Vishal had come to drop them. After this, Vishal and Mohit used to hang out outside my house for two- three days. At that time she was so sad that even when she had to testify before the magistrate, she did not tell him anything openly. Apart from this, when they reached the PWD bridge from Marin Drive, the police caught hold of Vishal and Mohit's vehicle and after submitting the challan to them, they stole the vehicle. 14. Ku.Dipti Pandey (PW-2) has stated in her evidence that the incident is dated 5.8.2018. On the date of incident, she and victim had gone to City Center Mall to celebrate her birthday, Gurpreet and Komal had come there. After some time, Gurpreet and Komal left there. After this, all four of them i.e. she, the victim, Vishal and Mohit went to marine drive, there the police had caught Vishal Mohit’s two wheeler, on which both of them told them that it was because of you people their two wheeler was caught, you guys will not leave from here until their two wheeler leaves. When the policeman released their two wheeler at about 11.30 P.M., they said that they have to go home, on which both of accused said that Harish Bhaiya’s weeding is going on at Rajendra Nagar. After this, she and the victim went with him to Rajendra Nagar in weeding, there they met Deepak Bhaiya and said that it is night, come to his house, so all four of them, the victim, Vishal, Mohit, Deepak Bhaiya went to his house, Deepak Bhaiya’s mother said that it was late in the night, so drop them to their house. Vishal was not going to drop them home, Deepak Bhaiya said that he has another house here, so let us go there, so she, the victim, Vishal, Mohit along with Deepak Bhaiya went to his house, there was no light, so they were in terrace only where there were already four boys whom she did not recognize. Those four boys smoke cigarettes and drank alcohol there. Those four boys smoke cigarettes and drank alcohol there. Accused Mohit tried to hold her hand and remaining accused had not done anything to them. Next day at 6 P.M., she and the victim left by the accused, thereafter she and the victim went to her cousin Ritu’s place and then went back home. She told her parents about the incident. After this, her mother Saraswati Pandey went to Devendra Police Station and lodged a report. 15. The prosecutrix (PW-1) was examined by Dr.N. Bhatnagar (PW-6). On external examination, there was no injury marks on any part of her body. There was no injury marks on her body internally and externally. On internal examination, she found that her hymen was torn and the edges were dead. There was no pain and no redness during the test. Two slides were made from the vaginal tissue, sealed and handed over the same to constable for testing. According to her opinion, it is possible that sexual intercourse may have taken place, which can be confirmed by examining the slide. 16. The first and foremost contention of learned counsel for the appellants was that merely because the matter relates to sexual assault on a minor, the appellants cannot be mechanically held guilty. Unless the legal test and requisite evidence is available, the appellants cannot be held guilty on the basis of sensitivity of matter alone. 17. The probability factor is certainly important and it is not safe to accept the statement of victim alone as a gospel truth, unless her statement is of ‘sterling quality’. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. 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. 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 howsoever 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.” 19. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana , (2011) 7 SCC 130 , the Supreme Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified laws and lacunae. It was held thus: “31. It was held thus: “31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences. 32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant.” 20. What lows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution’s case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified laws and gaps, could make it diicult for a conviction to be recorded. 21. When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. 22. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. 22. Taking a close look at the overall picture, the inference which could reasonably be drawn is that the prosecution's case has been marked by lackluster efforts, revealing a poorly executed endeavour that gives rise to substantial doubts regarding the integrity of the case. The material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version. These inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, render it considerably doubtful. On the face of such evident discrepancies, recording conviction becomes untenable, as the foundation of the case crumbles under the weight of doubt. While we might have chosen to overlook other contradictions and solely relied on the victim's account, considering her as a ‘sterling witness’, her version appears muddled and prevaricated, much less coherent. 23. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has admitted that the issue of rape came up in the statement two months later. She herself stated that Dipti, Mohit and Vishal had scared her a lot at night, the next day when she told Dipti that she will tell at home, Dipti said that Mohit, Vishal and their friends are scoundrels, they will kill her and that is why, she did not tell the incident to anyone. 24. The statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was firstly recorded by the Child Welfare Committee on 7.8.2018 (Ex.P-2) in which the prosecutrix has not stated that accused Deepak has forcible committed rape on her. Thereafter her 164 CrPC has been recorded before the Magistrate on 9.8.2018 vide Ex.P-3) in which also the prosecutrix has not stated that accused Deepak has forcible committed rape on her and after two months another statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 09.10.2018 vide Ex.D-1) in which the prosecutrix has stated that Deepak has forcible committed rape on her and no allegation has been levelled against other accused persons. 25. 25. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellants guilty of the said offences. 26. Considering the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her statement recorded before the Child Welfare Committee (Ex.P-2) evidence of PW-2 and evidence of Dr.N.Bhatnagar (PW-6), considering her 164 CrPC statement and her statement recorded after two months on 09.10.2018 (Ex.D- 1), her evidence appears to be of not of ‘sterling quality, also considering the material available on record and further considering the principle of law view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep alias Deenu (supra) and Krishan Kumar Malik (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforementioned has committed grave legal error. 27. For the foregoing reasons, criminal appeals filed on behalf of appellants- Deepak Bhoi, Mohit Patel, Keshav Raj Yadav, Visheshpuri Goswami and Vishal Rao are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2020 so far as it relates to appellants- Deepak Bhoi, Mohit Patel, Keshav Raj Yadav, Visheshpuri Goswami and Vishal Rao is hereby set-aside. The appellants stand acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. Appellant- Deepak Bhoi is reported to be in jail since 13.08.2018. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appellants- Mohit Patel, Vishal Rao, Keshav Raj Yadav and Visheshpuri Goswami are on bail, they need not surrender. 28. The appellants stand acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. Appellant- Deepak Bhoi is reported to be in jail since 13.08.2018. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appellants- Mohit Patel, Vishal Rao, Keshav Raj Yadav and Visheshpuri Goswami are on bail, they need not surrender. 28. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bonds in terms of from No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25000/- with 2 reliable sureties each in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. The Trial Court record alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.