JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. Since all these appeals arise out of the judgment dated19.3.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Korba in ST No.24/2011, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, appellants Amrit Lal Kerketta and Smt. Ashu Rathore stand convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Appellant – Amrit Lal Kerketta Sentence Under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code. RI for 7 years, pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default thereof to suffer RI for six months. Appellant – Smt. Ashu Rathore Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 1 year, pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default thereof to suffer RI for six months. Under Section 376(1) read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 7 years, pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default thereof to suffer RI for six months. Both the sentences of accused/appellant Smt. Ashu Rathore were directed to run concurrently. However, by this judgment the other accused Pappu Parik, Kishan Sharma, Rajkumar Agrawal and Lambodar were acquitted of all the charges u/s 342, 365, 368, 376(2) (g), 506 Part-II, 120B & 387 of IPC and accused Pankaj Agrawal was acquitted of all the charges u/s 342, 365, 368, 376(2)(g), 354, 506 Part- II, 120B & 387 of IPC. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix lives with her parents in Quarter No.527, CSEB Colony, Korba and was pursuing her MA. Accused Smt. Ashu Rathore resides above the said quarter i.e. Qt.No.528 and as such they frequently interact. About a month prior to 18.10.2009 accused Ashu Rathore told the prosecutrix that she is educated and should do any job and assured her of finding a good job for her. On the same day, the accused Ashu Rathore obtained the ATM card of father of the prosecutrix from her as well as jewelleries. Thereafter, accused Ashu Rathore sent her son (juvenile accused) to the ATM at Collectorate, Korba and got a sum of Rs.40,000/- withdrawn from the ATM of father of the prosecutrix and kept with her. On the same day, the accused Ashu Rathore obtained the ATM card of father of the prosecutrix from her as well as jewelleries. Thereafter, accused Ashu Rathore sent her son (juvenile accused) to the ATM at Collectorate, Korba and got a sum of Rs.40,000/- withdrawn from the ATM of father of the prosecutrix and kept with her. On the same day, she called the prosecutrix to her house, on which the prosecutrix went there at 11.30 am, she confined the prosecutrix in her house and as per conspiracy, called her acquaintance Inspector accused Amrit Lal and accused Damodar in a car at 3.30 am and thereafter these two accused took the prosecutrix to the house of accused Amrit Kerketta at Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur by force and intimidation and kept her there and also had sexual intercourse with her. Accused Damodar left her there and returned, however, accused Akrit Kerketta continued to have forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix informed about this over phone to Damodar Sahu and Ashu Rathore. She was kept in Bilaspur for three days and then brought to Mudapar. Accused Ashu Rathore, Amril Lal and Damodar threatened her of sending her to jail if she disclosed the incident to anyone, so she got scared and did not say anything. From Mudapar, the acquaintance of accused Ashu Rathore namely accused Kishan Sharma and Pappu Parik took the prosecutrix to Sakti by a vehicle and kept her in the house of accused Pappu Parik. 03. Next morning, Kishan Sharma took the prosecutrix to the farm house of his friend Raju and Pankaj Agrawal at Girvani, Raigarh, and kept her there. At the farmhouse, the accused Pankaj Agrawal would often try to do some inappropriate act with her whenever he visited. The prosecutrix also informed accused Ashu Rathore about this through a phone call. On 9.11.2009, accused Kishan Sharma brought the prosecutrix to Sakti, claiming that he would arrange a teaching job for her. At that time, the accused Ashu Rathore called and informed that the parents of the prosecutrix have lodged a missing report and that the prosecutrix is to give a statement that she is teaching at DAV School in Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur. They also asked the prosecutrix to sign an affidavit to this effect, which was prepared by accused Amrit Lal and Ashu Rathore. However, the prosecutrix refused to sign the affidavit. They also asked the prosecutrix to sign an affidavit to this effect, which was prepared by accused Amrit Lal and Ashu Rathore. However, the prosecutrix refused to sign the affidavit. After this, she was kept at Pappu Parik’s house. On 11.11.2009, accused Kishan Sharma and Pappu Parik brought her to ITI Chowk from Sakti and from there accused Amrit Kerketta took her to Kotwali Korba police station. There the prosecutrix under pressure from the accused gave false information as instructed. 04. After being released, the prosecutrix filed a written report of the incident at Rampur Chowki, based on which a crime was registered at 'Zero' number and forwarded to the Kotwali Korba police station for further registration. During the investigation, the police obtained consent of the prosecutrix and her father for her medical examination, and thereafter the prosecutrix was examined by a female doctor. The police also seized the accused Lambodar's Indica car, its documents, and his driving license. They conducted an inspection of the crime scene and prepared a map. The underwear of the prosecutrix, which she was wearing at the time of the incident, was seized. From her father, his ATM card of State Bank of India along with a receipt showing details of money withdrawn using the card, were seized. The card was later returned to him on supurdnama. The police also seized the slides of the prosecutrix prepared by the doctor. From accused Ashu Rathore, jewelry, twenty thousand rupees in cash, and the affidavit of the prosecutrix on a stamp paper were also seized. From accused Pappu Parik, his Alto car, which was used in the incident, was seized by the police. The seized underwear was sent for medical examination by the doctor. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested, and the accused Amrit Kerketta was also subjected to medical examination. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba against the accused persons. 05. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 342, 420 365, 368, 376(2)(g) in alternate 376(2)(g) read with 109, 506 Part-II, 120B and 387 of IPC against accused Ashu Rathore, under Sections 342, 365, 368, 376(2)(g), 354, 506 Part-II, 120B and 387 of IPC against accused Pankaj Agrawal and against rest of the accused persons under Sections 342, 365, 368, 376(2)(g), 506 Part-II, 120B and 387 of IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. The juvenile accused (son of accused Ashu Rathore) was charged u/s 420 of IPC and tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Korba. 06. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 07 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined 07 witnesses. 07. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants Smt. Ashu Rathore and Amritlal Kerketta as mentioned above while acquitting the other accused persons of all the charges. Hence these appeals. 08. Learned counsel for the appellant Amrit Lal Kerketta would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix, her testimony is not at all reliable. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is a major girl pursuing MA degree and was certainly capable of making hue and cry for help but she did not do so. During the course of alleged incident, she had sufficient opportunity to get off the clutches of the accused persons and report the matter to others but again she failed and did not resist the accused. Learned trial Court has failed to consider the contents of the FIR which go to show that this is a case of false implication as in the FIR itself it is mentioned that the police firstly took the family members of the prosecutrix into custody and thereafter only a false report against the appellant has been lodged by her. The prosecutrix herself states in para 25 of her deposition regarding enmity between the appellant and her family members and there are material contradictions and omission in her statement. On the same set of evidence, learned trial Court acquitted all other accused persons except the appellants Smt. Ashu Rathore and Amrit Lal Kerketta. Learned trial Court was not justified in not appreciating the evidence of the defence witnesses and the documents filed by the accused. Furthermore, the statement of the prosecutrix is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. On the same set of evidence, learned trial Court acquitted all other accused persons except the appellants Smt. Ashu Rathore and Amrit Lal Kerketta. Learned trial Court was not justified in not appreciating the evidence of the defence witnesses and the documents filed by the accused. Furthermore, the statement of the prosecutrix is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. In fact the allegation of rape is an afterthought and is made under the pressure of parents of the prosecutrix and her uncle Lakhan Lal Dewangan, Ex-Mayor of Korba. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge u/s 376(1) of IPC. 09. On behalf of accused/appellant Smt. Ashu Rathore, learned counsel argued that learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and also committed gross error in convicting the appellant u/s 376(1) read with S. 109 of IPC as it is settled position of law that a woman cannot be prosecuted or convicted u/s 376 of IPC. The prosecution failed to adduce any direct or indirect evidence against this appellant and only by adding Section 109 of IPC, learned trial Court convicted her whereas from perusal of statement of the prosecutrix, ingredients of the offence u/s 376 of IPC are not made out. The evidence of the defence witnesses has also not been appreciated properly by the trial Court and it also overlooked many discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses especially PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5. Medical evidence also lends no support to the version of the prosecutrix as the doctor who examined the prosecutrix did not find any injury on her body and rather opined that she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Learned counsel further submitted that identification of the ornaments seized by the police is also not done by the prosecution. The bills presented by father of the prosecutrix were found to be fake and there is no documentary evidence to prove ownership of the ornaments. She submitted that the juvenile accused has already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Korba of the charge u/s 420 of IPC. Once the prosecutrix herself appeared before the police station on 11.11.2009 and gave statement in favour of the appellant but thereafter again she changed her version and implicated her along with six other co-accused. She submitted that the juvenile accused has already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Korba of the charge u/s 420 of IPC. Once the prosecutrix herself appeared before the police station on 11.11.2009 and gave statement in favour of the appellant but thereafter again she changed her version and implicated her along with six other co-accused. Thus looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix and oral and documentary evidence on record, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Pramod Surabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another , AIR 2019 SC 4010 ; judgment dated 14.2.2020 of the Supreme Court in CRA No.264/2020 in Santosh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar ; judgment dated 30.10.2023 of Supreme Court in CRA No.2276/2014 in the case of Manak Chand @ Mani Vs. State of Haryana ; judgment dated 1.4.2024 of Delhi High Court in CRA No.495/23 in Pawan Sharma and others Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi ; judgment dated 27.3.2024 of this Court in CRA No.386/2023 in Shravan Kumar Sahu Vs. State of CG ; judgment of the High Court of Patna in Sangita Devi Vs. State of Bhiar , 2025(1) eILR (PAT) HC 2267; and judgment 07.01.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CRA No.94/2025 in the matter of State (GNCT of Delhi) Vs. Vipin @ Lalla. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants would submit that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment. However, the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting them as also the other accused persons of the charges leveled against them. Therefore, the State has preferred acquittal appeal against the said findings. He would submit that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and succumbed to the minor discrepancies. Learned trial Court was not justified in recording a finding that the prosecutrix moved here and there with the accused persons on her own free will. Therefore, the State has preferred acquittal appeal against the said findings. He would submit that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and succumbed to the minor discrepancies. Learned trial Court was not justified in recording a finding that the prosecutrix moved here and there with the accused persons on her own free will. Even if she moved here and there with the accused persons, it can not be construed as a legal consent and it can safely be inferred that such consent of the prosecutrix was obtained by putting her under fear and misconception of fact of getting employment. The prosecutrix categorically stated that she narrated about the sexual assault made by accused Amritlal Kerketta to accused Smt. Anshu Rathore over telephone, upon which Anshu Rathore threatened her for keeping mum. This conduct of Anshu Rathore clearly establishes the intention shared by her with accused Amritlal Kerketta. There is clear evidence of the prosecutrix that she was taken away by the respondents from one place to another and was wrongfully confined. Thus, in view of the overall evidence on record, the learned trial court was not justified in acquitting respondents/accused No.2 to 5 & 7 of the charges leveled against them and respondents/accused No.1 & 6 of the charges 342, 365, 368, 506 Part-II, 120B & 387 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified and the respondents/accused be convicted and sentenced appropriately for the act done by them. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused opposed the contention of the State counsel and submitted that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence rightly acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 & 7 of all the charges leveled against them and respondents/accused No.1 & 6 of the charges 342, 365, 368, 506 Part-II, 354, 120B & 387 of IPC. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment to this extent and the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment to this extent and the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 342, 420 365, 368, 376(2)(g) in alternate 376(2)(g) read with 109, 506 Part-II, 120B and 387 of IPC against accused Ashu Rathore; under Sections 342, 365, 368, 376(2) (g), 354, 506 Part-II, 120B and 387 of IPC against accused Pankaj Agrawal and against rest of the accused persons under Sections 342, 365, 368, 376(2)(g), 506 Part-II, 120B and 387 of IPC. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence while acquitting the other accused persons of all the charges, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 14. It is an admitted position before the learned trial Court that the accused/appellant Smt. Ashu Rathore was residing in Quarter No.528 at CSEB Colony, Korba, above the quarter No.527 of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix (PW-2) and her father (PW-3) know the accused Ashu Rathore. 15. PW-2 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident i.e. 18.10.2009 accused Ashu Rathore assured her of getting her job and for that demanded money, ornaments and her certificate and also assured that after getting her job, she would make arrangement for her marriage. When she (PW-2) replied that she has no money, accused Ashu Rathore asked her to bring ATM card of her father and give it to her son who would withdraw money from it. On this she gave ATM card of her father as also the ornaments and her certificates to son of accused Ashu Rathore. She got a sum of Rs.14,000/- withdrawn on 14.10.2009, Rs.15,000/- on 15.10.2009 and Rs.10,000/- on 18.10.2009 from her son using the said ATM card. However, when she (PW-2) asked for ATM slip, it was not given to her. In para 3 she states that on 18.10.2009 Ashu Rathore made her enter the vacant quarter in front of hers at 11.30 am and locked the same from outside. She instructed her (PW-2) not to make any noise or else people would get to know and got the windows etc. shut. In para 3 she states that on 18.10.2009 Ashu Rathore made her enter the vacant quarter in front of hers at 11.30 am and locked the same from outside. She instructed her (PW-2) not to make any noise or else people would get to know and got the windows etc. shut. At around 3.30 am Ashu Rathore took her out and sent her to Bilaspur with her acquaintance driver Damodar Sahu and Inspector Amrit Kerketta. When she objected to it, Ashu Rathore threatened her of facing the consequences and also of life, so she sat in the vehicle quietly. She was taken to Bilaspur at 6.30 am where she was taken by Amrit Kerketta to a house which was rented out and thereafter, driver Damodar left Amrit Kerketta and herself there and moved away. Thereafter, Amrit Kerketta committed repeated sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance. 16. In para 4 she states that when the driver returned, she informed Ashu Rathore over phone about the act of accused Amrit Kerketta on which she scolded her to keep quiet. She was kept in Bilaspur by accused Amrit for three days. She further stated that on 23.10.2009 accused Ashu Rathore brought her to Mudapar at Korba and kept her there from 21 st to 23 rd October, 2009 and thereafter, Ashu Rathore called her acquaintance Pappu Parikh and Kishan Sharam and sent her with them to Sakti. Whenever she raised hue and cry, she was threatened by them not to do so. She was kept at Sakti for one day by accused Pappu Parikh and next day accused Kishan Sharma took her to Raigarh and from there she was taken to the farm house of Pankaj Agrawal and there also she was threatened if she raised alarm. She states that she was kept in the farm house for one week. During this period, accused Kishan Sharma, Raju Agrawal, Pankaj and Pappu Parikh used to come and attempt to do indecent act with her and threaten her. 17. In para 7 she states that on 9.11.2009 Ashu Rathore told her over phone that her father has lodged a missing report, so she has to make statement as instructed by them. On 9.11.2009 Kishan Sharma and Pappu Parikh brought her to Sakti from farm house on the pretext that she would be provided job of teacher and her statement is to be recorded. On 9.11.2009 Kishan Sharma and Pappu Parikh brought her to Sakti from farm house on the pretext that she would be provided job of teacher and her statement is to be recorded. She was kept at the house of Pappu Parikh at Sakti on 9 th and 10 th and on 11 th November, 2009 they took her to Korba at the instance of accused Ashu Rathore for giving statement. She states that accused Amritlal Kerketta and Ashu Rathore told her that her statement is to be recorded and they got a false affidavit of her prepared which does not bear her signature. Thereafter, Amrit Kerketta dropped her at Kotwali Korba Police Station where she gave false statement in his favour as she was threatened for giving such statement. She states that when her parents after receiving information reached Kotwali Police Station, seeing them she stopped giving false statement and thereafter the police and her parents brought her to Rampur Police Station where on 12.11.2009 her true statement was recorded. She made written complaint at Rampur Police Station vide Ex.P/3 and admitted her signature from A to A part on Ex.P/3 and FIR (Ex.P/4). 18. In her cross-examination she denies the suggestion that she had affair with one Banti, she got pregnant from him twice which was aborted. In para 20 she admits that on 18.10.2009 she informed accused Ashu Rathore from the phone of Damodar about the act of accused Amrit Kerketta. She states that from 18.10.2009 to 9.11.2009 she herself did not make a call to Ashu Rathore. She then clarifies that as she did not know the mobile number of Ashu Rathore, she did not make her a call. She admits that during this period she had no contact with Ashu Rathore. In para 21 she states that ATM card of her father was kept in the almirah and its code number was not disclosed by her father to her, however, when she searched she found the code number of ATM in his bag. She has no knowledge as to how much balance was there in the account of her father after withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- through ATM on 14.10.2009 and further withdrawal on 15.10.2009. She has no knowledge as to how much balance was there in the account of her father after withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- through ATM on 14.10.2009 and further withdrawal on 15.10.2009. She states that on 14 th she gave ATM card to son of Ashu Rathore and on the same day, ATM card was returned to her and she kept it back in the almirah. She states that at present she does not remember the code number of ATM card of her father. 19. She admits that Lakhanlal is her uncle in relation who was Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Korba. She also states that after the incident her father informed her that there was some political dispute between Ashu Rathore and Lakhan Dewangan and that Ashu Rathore first lodged report against Lakhan Dewangan. However, she expressed ignorance about the fact whether on the report of Ashu Rathore, Lakhan Dewangan despite being Parshad remained in jail for 14 days. In para 30 she admits that she herself after withdrawing money by using ATM of her father did not give it to Ashu Rathore and her son. In para 34 she admits that she knew the mobile number of her father and when Damodar gave her mobile, she had opportunity of talking to her father but she didn’t because she wanted to inform Ashu. Further she denies the suggestion that she does not want to talk to her father and clarifies that while she was talking from the phone of Damodar, at that time Amrit Kerketta was before her and he had told her not to talk to anyone except Ashu. 20. In reply to the question under para 39 that when she was giving statement in Kotwali Police Station against her family members and her relatives reached there, she stopped giving statement, she replied in the affirmative “Yes”. In para 40 she states that before arrival of her relatives she was stating that whatever she did is voluntarily and was also stating that being fed up with her family members she had moved 21. PW-3 father of the prosecutrix states that accused Ashu Rathore enticed away the prosecutrix for getting her a good job. By giving such enticement, Ashu Rathore also obtained gold and silver ornament and ATM card from the prosecutrix. The police seized his ATM card vide Ex.P/10. He denies the suggestion that her daughter/prosecutrix had affair with one Bunty. PW-3 father of the prosecutrix states that accused Ashu Rathore enticed away the prosecutrix for getting her a good job. By giving such enticement, Ashu Rathore also obtained gold and silver ornament and ATM card from the prosecutrix. The police seized his ATM card vide Ex.P/10. He denies the suggestion that her daughter/prosecutrix had affair with one Bunty. He denies that Lakhan Dewangan is his relative and states that he does not know whether on Ashu Rathore’s report, Lakhan Dewangan remained in jail for 14 days. In para 37 he states that the ATM card was seized by the police from him and no ATM card was seized from his daughter. The seized ATM card belongs to him. He states that his daughter did not tell him about preparation of any affidavit and its submission. He states that from 18.10.2009 to 22.10.2009 his daughter did not contact with him from anyone’s mobile or phone. In para 41 he expressed ignorance about the fact whether at the time of leaving home, his daughter took away gold and silver ornaments with her. He also denies the suggestion that on the pressure of Lakhan Dewangan, the prosecutrix lodged a false report. 22. Ex.P/8 is the affidavit filed by the prosecution. As per the prosecutrix, accused Ashu Rathore and Amritlal Kerketta prepared this false affidavit. In the said affidavit she states as under: This affidavit is sworn on 11.11.2009 and she also admitted that in Kotwali, Korba she gave statement in favour of accused Amritlal and when her parents arrived there, on 12.11.2009 she gave correct statement about the incident. 23. As per the prosecution case, accused Ashu Rathore asked the prosecutrix to bring money and ornaments and other accused persons kidnapped her. But it is clear from seizure memo Ex.P/10 that ATM card was seized from father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and he also 24. The defence also examined seven witnesses. DW-4 Hetram Sidar, Assistant Sub Inspector, Champa produced Rojnamcha Sanha of Chowki, Rampur and stated that on 18.10.2003 a protest was held at Rampur Chowki in connection with arrest of Lakhan Lal Dewangan which was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha and at that time, Amritlal Kerketta was the Station House Officer. He produced the original Sanha and its true copy as Ex.D/4, D/4C, D/5, D/5C, D/6 & D/6C. 25. He produced the original Sanha and its true copy as Ex.D/4, D/4C, D/5, D/5C, D/6 & D/6C. 25. DW-5 Ravindra Kumar Joshi, Constable, states that in the year 2008 Amritlal Kerketta and Head Constable Madhav Prasad Tiwari were posted with him at DCRB Branch of office of Superintendent of Police, Korba. At that time, there was dispute between Madhav Prasad Tiwari and Amritlal Kerketta and they threatened each other. DW-6 Malikram, Head Constable, produced Sanha No.15 (Ex.D/7) regarding missing report of the prosecutrix. As per this Sanha, PW-3 father of the prosecutrix informed that his daughter is missing since 18.10.2009 at 11.30 am. On 12.11.2009 in Sanha No.13, 13:05 hours, the proceeding regarding enquiry into missing report, recovery of the prosecutrix and enquiry from her, have been written which is Ex.D/10. This Sanha also records the fact that on 10.10.2009 the prosecutrix went away from her home, gave ATM of her father to Ashu Rathore, withdrew Rs.10,000/- through ATM and kept gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.60,000/-. In cross-examination he states that Sanha No.15 of Ex.D/7 records the factum of prosecutrix going away from her home on 18.10.2009 at 11.30 am and that the date 10.10.2009 mentioned in Sanha No.13 is not the correct date of the prosecutrix leaving her home. 26. As per the prosecutrix, she was subjected to repeated sexual intercourse. However, PW-7 Dr. S. Shrivastava who examined her did not notice any external or internal injury and opined that she is habitual to sexual intercourse vide Ex.P/14A. 27. Learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence observed in paras 32 & 33 of the impugned judgment as under: 28. In her lengthy cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted various suggestions of the defence and looking to her conduct during the whole incident, her evidence appears to be doubtful. The learned trial court also found that her statement suffers from exaggeration and does not inspire confidence of the Court. In the matter of Santosh Prasad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 6 of its judgment as under: “6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed rape. She has stated that she identified the accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even nothing is on record that there was a broken compound wall. She has further stated that in the morning at 10 O'clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1 and others. However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5-prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of "sterling witness". There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the prosecutrix PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt” 29. In the matter of Vipin @ Lalla (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paras 9 & 10 of the judgment as under: “9. We have gone through the order of the Trial Court as well as the High Court.. The only worthwhile evidence which has been produced before the Court by the prosecution is the deposition of the prosecutrix herself. We have gone through the order of the Trial Court as well as the High Court.. The only worthwhile evidence which has been produced before the Court by the prosecution is the deposition of the prosecutrix herself. Although the age of the prosecutrix is 16 years and four months which has not been seriously disputed (accused was about 20 years of age at the time of the incident). Nevertheless the fact remains that the medical examination which was conducted on 18.09.2014 revealed that no injuries were detected on the body of the prosecutrix. Though it was stated in the medical report that her hymen was torn. Definitely the prosecutrix in her examination-in- chief as well as in cross-examination has stuck to the fact that she was raped by the accused but the fact remains that she has contradicted her statement at more than one place. Moreover she has said in her statement under Section 164 CrPC she had hit the accused on her head by Danda whereas in her examination-in-chief she stated that she hit the accused on his foot. When the accused had surrendered on 10.10.2014 none of these injuries were noticed on the body of the accused. 10. Although it is absolutely true that in the case of rape, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as her evidence is in the nature of an injured witness which is given a very high value by the courts. But nevertheless when a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness the courts are bound to be very careful in examining such a witness and thus the testimony of such a witness must inspire confidence of the Court. The testimony of the prosecutrix in the present case thus has failed to inspire absolute confidence of the Trial Court, the High Court and this Court as well.” 30. In the present case also, the learned trial Court found that statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable and accordingly, acquitted the co-accused persons of all the charges. The accused/appellant Amritlal Kerketta has proved the fact that when he was posted at PS- Rampur, at that time Lakhan Lal Dewangan, relative of the prosecutrix, was arrested in connection with some offence. The accused/appellant Amritlal Kerketta has proved the fact that when he was posted at PS- Rampur, at that time Lakhan Lal Dewangan, relative of the prosecutrix, was arrested in connection with some offence. The prosecutrix herself admitted that she signed the affidavit Ex.P/8 and initially gave statement in favour of the accused persons but when her parents and uncle reached police station, she changed her statement and stated against the accused/appellants. The medical report also does not suggest any forcible intercourse with the prosecutrix. True it is that in cases of sexual assault, the testimony of the prosecutrix is of paramount importance and the same alone can be made basis of conviction provided it inspires confidence and is free from the suspicion of falsity. While basing conviction on such testimony, the Courts are required to be quite vigilant. However, as observed above, in the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix has failed to inspire absolute confidence of the Court. Learned trial Court also found that she left her home in search of job of her own. 31. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas the defence has to show that their defence is probable or there exists material (from the prosecution’s evidence itself or additional defence evidence) that makes the prosecution story doubtful. In the present case, from the oral and documentary evidence, the accused/appellants Ashu Rathore and Amritlal Kerketta have proved that one relative of the prosecutrix has previous enmity with them. Thus, considering the overall evidence on record, in particular of the prosecutrix, the exaggerations in her statement, the medical evidence as also her conduct during the incident and subsequent thereto, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused/appellants. On the same set of evidence, the learned trial Court also acquitted the other co-accused persons of all the charges. Therefore, the accused/appellants also deserve to be acquitted of the charges leveled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. 32. On the same set of evidence, the learned trial Court also acquitted the other co-accused persons of all the charges. Therefore, the accused/appellants also deserve to be acquitted of the charges leveled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. 32. As regards the acquittal appeal filed by the State, on the basis of aforesaid discussion it is clear that the learned trial Court and this Court found that the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable and accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges. 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 ) in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka , has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re- appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 34. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible one and we find no illegality or perversity in the findings so recorded by learned trial Court while acquitting the accused persons of the charges leveled against them, warranting any interference by this Court. Therefore, the acquittal appeal sans merits and is liable to be dismissed. 35. In the result, both the criminal appeals stand allowed and the acquittal appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. Accused/appellant Amritlal Kerketta is acquitted of the charge u/s 376(1) of IPC and Smt. Ashu Rathore is acquitted of the chargesu/s 420 and 376(1)/109 of IPC. The findings of acquittal recorded by learned trial court are hereby affirmed. 36. The accused/appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 each of them is directed to furnish a personal bond for a 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 alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.