1 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 2025:CGHC:60899-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1144 of 2023 Virendra Nihal Aged About 22 Years R/o Sudama Nagar, Shivshankar Chowk Police Station Tikrapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ram Krishna Dixit, Advocate For Respondent/State: Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 15.12.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(1st Fast Track Special Court), District Raipur C.G. in Special Criminal Case No. 85/2021 whereby the appellant has JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.17 11:44:09 +0530 2 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 been sentence and convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 456 of the IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations. Under Section 376 (3) of the IPC R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulations. Under Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC R. I. For 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulations. Under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations. ( All the sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant/victim, a minor, submitted a written application to Tikrapara Police Station stating that for the preceding four to five months, the accused, Virendra Nihal, her neighbor, had repeatedly expressed his love for her, despite her telling him that he was like an uncle. She alleged that on the night of 8th December 2020, while she was sleeping separately in the living room with her grandmother and her parents were asleep on the roof, the accused entered the house without permission around 1:00–1:30 AM. He forcibly took her to the kitchen, covered her mouth when she screamed, removed her knicker, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will, threatening to defame her at school if she disclosed the incident. The victim further stated that the accused came to her house three to four times during December 2020, forcibly committing sexual 3 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 intercourse after threatening her on each occasion. He would also follow her to school. Based on the victim’s complaint, First Information Report (FIR) No. 97/2021 was lodged against the appellant. After completing the investigation, the appellant was arrested and charge sheet was filed. 3. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses and 24 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is wholly contrary to the facts and evidence on record and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. It was contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, as the prosecution has failed to prove any of the allegations against him, and the complaint is baseless and motivated, arising out of a prior 4 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 dispute between the appellant and the complainant. It was further submitted that the medical evidence clearly indicates the absence of any injuries on the victim’s body, both internal and external, and that it was not possible for the alleged offence to have occurred in the presence of the victim’s family at the stated time. Learned counsel emphasized that the appellant, a young man of 22 years, has no prior conviction and has not committed any of the alleged offences. Reliance placed by the trial Court on the statement of the victim’s mother, who is unreliable, and on witnesses who have turned hostile, was argued to be erroneous. Counsel pointed out various contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses that were not properly scrutinized by the trial Court and further submits that the age of the victim was also not proved by the prosecution. It was submitted that the ingredients of offences under Sections 456, 376(2)(n), 376(3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out against the appellant and that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court are illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the statement of the victim and other witnesses are fully reliable. There are sufficient evidence available on record to 5 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 hold that the appellant is guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant which does not require for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first and foremost question arose for the consideration would be whether the victim was minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of incident or not ? 9. The victim (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that she is aged about 15 years and her date of birth is 03.12.2005. PW-2 mother of the victim stated that her daughter is aged about 14 years and her date of birth is 03.12.2005. 10. PW-3 Director of victim’s School has deposed in his statement that the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-10) was seized by the police from him. He deposed that in the dakhil-kharij register, the date of birth of victim has been mentioned as 03.12.2005. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the entries in the said register was not done by him and he also do not have the knowledge on what basis the entry were made. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 40,42,43,44 and 48 of its judgment in Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, 2011(2) SCC 385, the Supreme Court has 6 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 observed as under: "40.Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. 42. Considering the manner in which the facts recorded in a document may be proved, this Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit1, observed as follows:- "The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined....Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouchsafe 7 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents 1988 (Supp) SCC 604 have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted." 43. The same proposition of law is reiterated by this Court in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal2, where this Court observed as follows:- "The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue"." 44. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. The father says nothing about the transfer certificate in his evidence. The Headmaster has not been examined at all. Therefore, the entry in the transfer certificate can not be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the girl. 48. We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P.4 held as follows:- "The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the 8 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted." 12. In case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 (8) SCC 602, while considering various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 33 as under: "33. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows: 33.2. If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be. XXXX XXXX XXX 33.3. That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden. However, the 9 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub- section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised. 33.4. The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side. 33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance. 10 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case. 33.7 This Court has observed that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile. 33.8. If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences. 33.9. That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents. 11 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and other provisions. 33.11. Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015." 13. Recently, in case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2023 (SCC Online) SC 846, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 17 as under : "14. Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such 12 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 documents the age is to be determined through "an ossification test" or "any other latest medical age determination test" conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to thedescription of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. 15. In a recent decision, in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. 13 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. this court outlined the procedure to be followed in cases where age determination is required. The court was dealing with Rule 12 of the erstwhile Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari materia) with Section 94 of the JJ Act, and held as follows: "20. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals with the procedure to be followed in determination of age. The juvenility of a person in conflict with law had to be decided prima facie on the basis of physical appearance, or documents, if available. But an inquiry into the determination of age by the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking evidence by obtaining: (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It was also provided that while determination was being made, benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on lower 14 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 side within the margin of one year." 16. Speaking about provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially the various options in Section 94 (2) of the JJ Act, this court held in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors that: "Clause (i) of Section 94 (2) places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the 2021 (12) SCR 502 [2019] 9 SCR 735 concerned examination board in the same category (namely (i) above). In the absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and (ii) that age determination by means of medical analysis is provided. Section 94(2) (a)(i) indicates a significant change over the provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007 made under the Act of 2000. Under Rule 12(3)(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence and it was only in the event of the certificate not being available that the date of birth certificate fromthe school first attended, could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i) both the date of birth certificate from the school as well as the matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed in the 15 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 same category. 17. In Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal, this court, through a three-judge bench, held that the burden of proving that someone is a juvenile (or below the prescribed age) is upon the person claiming it. Further, in that decision, the court indicated the hierarchy of documents that would be accepted in order of preference." 14. On a careful appreciation of the evidence relating to the age of the victim, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that the victim was a minor on the date of the alleged incident. The victim herself (PW-1) stated her age to be about 15 years, while her mother (PW-2) stated it to be about 14 years; thus, even the oral testimonies are not consistent and are only approximate in nature. The date of birth has been sought to be proved through the Dakhil-Kharij Register (Ex.P-10), produced by PW-3, the Director of the victim’s school. However, PW-3 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the entries in the said register were not made by him and that he has no knowledge regarding the basis on which the date of birth of the victim was recorded. In the absence of examination of the person who made the entry or proof of the foundational document on the basis of which such entry was made, the school record cannot be treated as 16 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 reliable or conclusive proof of age. Mere statements of the victim and her mother, unsupported by legally admissible and trustworthy documentary evidence, are insufficient to hold that the victim was below the age of majority. 15. Except for these evidences, no other evidence like ossification test report have been produced by the prosecution to determine her age that on the date of incident, she was minor or less than 18 years of age. Therefore, the evidence produced by the prosecution with respect to the age of the victim is not of that sterling quality which is sufficient to determine the age of the victim. Therefore, there is lack of clinching and cogent evidence to hold her minor on the date of incident. 16. The next question for consideration would be whether the appellant has committed rape upon her or not. 17. The victim (PW-1) deposed that the accused used to express his love towards her, to which she replied that she considered him to be like her uncle (mama). Despite this, the accused continued to follow her whenever she went to school. The victim further states that in December 2020, at about 1:30 a.m. her uncle and aunt were not present at home and her parents were sleeping in the upstairs room whereas she and her grandmother were sleeping in the hall. The main door of the house was open. Taking advantage of the situation, the accused entered the house, dragged the victim to the kitchen, and when she raised an alarm, he forcibly covered her 17 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 mouth to silence her. Thereafter, the accused committed forcible sexual assault upon her. After the incident, the accused threatened the victim and warned her not to disclose the incident to anyone. The victim states that the accused committed similar acts three to four times during December 2020. Even thereafter, the accused continued to follow her to school and threatened to kill her. She further deposed that being mentally disturbed and frightened, she ultimately disclosed the entire incident to her parents and lodged the report. In cross-examination the victim admitted that the kitchen was adjacent to the hall, of adequate size, fully equipped, and that the house had a single entrance with a grill. She further admitted that the house was situated in a densely populated area with regular movement of people and adjoining houses. The victim admitted that she was aware of the difference between right and wrong and that offences should be reported to elders. She stated that although the incident occurred in December 2020, the report was lodged about four months later. She clarified that she disclosed the incident to her parents on 31.03.2021, after which the report was lodged. She stated that she had not informed her parents earlier due to fear and because her maternal grandfather had expired in February. She admitted that she used to commute to school by auto and that despite alleged threats and stalking, she had not lodged any complaint with the police, school authorities, or 18 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 any other person between December 2020 and March 2021. She acknowledged acquaintance with the accused’s sister and admitted that there had been a dispute between her mother and the accused’s sister during a family function, though she denied that the present case was lodged due to any prior family dispute or enmity. She expressed ignorance regarding any prior complaint allegedly filed by the accused’s sister against her father. The victim admitted that generally people lock their doors at night but stated that the main door was kept partially open due to the location of the bathroom outside the grill and her grandmother’s impaired eyesight. She admitted that this fact was not mentioned in her earlier statements. She further admitted that after the alleged incident she returned to sleep beside her grandmother and did not disclose the incident to her at that time due to fear. She stated that her grandmother had impaired hearing and eyesight. She admitted that although her younger brother could have slept with the grandmother, he did not do so. She further admitted that during the alleged incidents, she did not use any object to defend herself and that the accused did not carry any weapon. She admitted that she did not mention in her police statement that she had screamed while being dragged to the kitchen and stated that this fact was disclosed for the first time before the Court. She also admitted that certain details, including the alleged use of a scarf to cover her mouth, were not mentioned in her earlier statements. She stated 19 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 that although her hands were free, she did not resist beyond pushing the accused. She admitted that the lights were switched off at night, resulting in darkness, and that had she raised an alarm or made noise, family members or neighbours could have woken up. She stated that on the day following the alleged incident, she carried on her normal routine at home. 18. PW- 2 mother of the victim stated that the accused resides in her neighbourhood and that she used to regard him as her brother. She stated that the incident pertains to the year 2020, though she does not remember the exact date, that during the said period the victim became unusually withdrawn, irritable and unwilling to attend school, and despite repeated inquiries by the witness and her husband, the victim disclosed nothing, whereupon they presumed her sadness to be due to the recent demise of her maternal grandfather who used to teach her. She further stated that on one occasion, upon receiving a call from the victim’s teacher regarding submission of an assignment, the victim refused to go to school alone and insisted on being accompanied by her brother, who was unable to do so due to his examinations, and upon further questioning the victim, while distressed, disclosed that the accused used to follow her up to the school, that thereafter the victim further disclosed that on nights when she slept in the hall with her grandmother, the accused gagged her mouth with a cloth, forcibly took her into the kitchen and subjected her to sexual intercourse 20 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 and that upon being asked as to why she had not disclosed the incident earlier, the victim stated that she was traumatized by her grandfather’s death and was threatened by the accused, who warned her that he would kill her in the same manner as he had allegedly killed a resident of the locality and would defame her by going to her school. 19. Dr. Smt. Rajani Chourasiya stated that on 01.04.2021 at about 9:00 a.m., the victim, aged 15 years, was produced before him for medical examination. She further stated that she conducted the physical examination of the victim. On general examination, the witness stated that the victim’s general condition was normal. She was thin built, conscious, oriented, and her secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed. She further stated that no external injuries were found on any part of her body. On internal examination, the witness stated that on vaginal examination, no injury marks were found in the genital area. The hymen was found to be old torn and healed. He further stated that two slides were prepared from the vaginal secretion, duly sealed and signed by him, and were handed over to the same woman constable for chemical examination. In his medical opinion, the witness stated that no definite opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse could be given. 20. In FSL report vide Ex.P-24, no human sperm was found in the 21 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 vaginal slide. In the medical examination report of the victim, no injuries were found over the parts of the body of victim. 21. On a meticulous scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution version is rendered highly doubtful due to the unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report and the prolonged silence maintained by the victim. As per the prosecution case itself, the alleged incidents are stated to have occurred repeatedly during December, 2020, whereas the FIR was admittedly lodged only on 01.04.2021, after a lapse of nearly four months. The said delay assumes significance in the facts of the present case, particularly when the victim was continuously residing with her parents, attending school regularly, and was in constant contact with her family members, teachers and neighbours, yet no disclosure whatsoever was made during this long interregnum. The explanation offered for the delay, namely fear of the accused and the demise of the victim’s maternal grandfather, does not appear to be cogent or convincing. The victim herself admitted in her cross-examination that she was conscious of the difference between right and wrong and was aware that such incidents ought to be reported to elders. Despite this, she neither informed her parents nor her grandmother, who was allegedly sleeping beside her at the time of the occurrence. Even after the alleged incident, she returned to sleep normally and carried on her routine activities on the following day, which is inconsistent with the 22 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 conduct expected in the event of a forcible sexual assault. Significantly, she also admitted that during the intervening period she did not lodge any complaint with the police, school authorities, or any other responsible person, despite the allegation that the accused continued to follow and threaten her. 22. Further, the house where the alleged incident took place is situated in a densely populated locality, with adjoining houses and regular movement of people. The alleged act is stated to have occurred in the kitchen adjacent to the hall, during night hours, while other family members were present in the same premises. In such circumstances, the total absence of any immediate disclosure, alarm or reaction, coupled with the four-month delay in setting the criminal law into motion, casts a serious shadow on the veracity of the prosecution case. The delay is further aggravated by the fact that several material details, including raising an alarm, covering of mouth with a cloth, and other particulars, were admittedly not mentioned in the earlier statements and surfaced for the first time during deposition before the Court, thereby amounting to material improvements. 23. In absence of a satisfactory and plausible explanation for such an abnormal delay and prolonged silence, this Court is constrained to hold that the possibility of embellishment, exaggeration or false implication cannot be ruled out. It is well settled that while delay in 23 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 lodging an FIR in cases of sexual offence is not per se fatal, where the delay remains unexplained and is coupled with material contradictions, omissions and lack of corroborative evidence, the same assumes fatal significance. 24. In the present case, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the long non-disclosure of the alleged incidents strike at the root of the prosecution case and render it unsafe to base a conviction solely on such testimony. Further, the past dispute between the families also cannot be ignored as it can also be a ground for false implication of the accused. 25. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 26. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 27. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the 24 CRA No. 1144 of 2023 appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with 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 thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 28. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti