IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 44 of 2021 Reserved on: 23.05.2025 Decided on: 30.05.2025 _____________________________________________________ Lekh Raj alias Dodu …..Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes _____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as the accused) under Section 374 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2021, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.47-S/7 of 2020/2015, whereby he was convicted under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) ‘POCSO Act’) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 363, IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of similar description for a period of one month and for commission of the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of similar description for a period of two months. Further, he was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 4 of POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of similar description for a period of one year. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the instant appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on on 18.07.2015 the complainant/father of the victim (name withheld) lodged a written complaint to the police, stating therein in that his daughter victim 'K', who was aged about 14 years and studying in 10th standard, was missing from 17.07.2015 and he had made every efforts to search her in the neighbourhood but she could not be traced. He also informed about this incident to his elder brother, who immediately came to his village and then they tried to search for the victim. His wife had 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) informed him that Lekh Raj @ Dodu (accused herein) had been talking with the victim for the last many days and on the aforesaid day also, the accused was seen in the village, hence, he (complainant) suspected that his daughter victim 'K' had been taken away by the accused. On the basis of said complaint, the FIR in question was registered under Sections 363, 366, IPC and Section 18 of POCSO Act. During the course of investigation, sister-in-law of the complainant brought the victim to Durgaghati on 18.07.2015 and thereafter she was taken to police station, where the police recorded her statement, wherein she disclosed that on 17.07.2015, at about 3:00 p.m, the accused had enticed her to accompany him by threatening that in case she did not accompany him, he would harm her family. During the night of 17.07.2015, the accused made her to stay in a house at Kararaghat, where he committed rape upon her and on 18.07.2015, he left her near Galog by stating that she was not of marriageable age. On the basis of such statement, Section 376 of I.P.C and Section 4 of POCSO Act were included in the FIR. The medical examination of the victim was got conducted by the police. The police also recorded the statements of the witnesses and had taken into possession certain documents. 3. On the completion of the investigation and receipt of the SFSL report, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the trial Court. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) 4. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 27.02.2017, framed charges against the accused under Sections 363, 366, IPC and Section 4 of POSCO Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him, besides pleaded to be innocent and being falsely implicated. However, the accused did not examine any witness in his defence. 6. On the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted the accused, vide the impugned judgment and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant/accused approached this Court by way of the instant appeal, praying therein for his acquittal, after setting aside the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the law as well as the facts and its findings are based upon surmises and conjectures. He further contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) aside on the sole ground that once the victim did not support the case of the prosecution and did not depose against the accused, then the question of kidnapping does not arise at all. He also contended that no injury marks were found on the body of the victim and no fresh bleeding was found during her medical examination. Hence, he submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and set-aside and the accused be acquitted. 9. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the learned trial Court has rightly and correctly appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. He further contended that there is more than sufficient material on record which clearly shows that the accused had committed the crime. The evidence, which has come on record, is enough to convict the accused, therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence need no interference and the appeal, which is devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the record carefully. 11. To substantiate the charges framed against the respondent-accused and to bring home his guilt, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. However, the case of the 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1, Shanti Devi, PW-2 complainant/father of the victim, PW-3 victim ‘K’, PW-10 Dr. Savita Aggarwal and PW-17 SI Jeet Ram (Investigating Officer). 12. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, PW-9, who is the Junior Basic Teacher (JBT), Government Primary School, deposed that on the application made by the police, copy of school admission record Ext.PW9/B and birth certificate Ext. PW9/C of the victim were handed over to the police on the basis of the record of the child victim maintained in the school. Similarly PW-8 Secretary, Gram Panchayat also deposed that she had issued copy of Pariwar Register of the family of the complainant/father of the victim Ext. PW8/B. Perusal of these documents Ext. PW9/B, Ext. PW9/C & Ext. PW8/B shows that the date of birth of the victim is 28.04.2001. Thus, at the time of the alleged incident, the age of the victim was about 14 years and three months and she was minor at that time. 13. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. In Jugendra Singh Vs. State of UP, (2012) 6 SCC 297, Hon'ble Apex Court has held:- "49. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. An attempt for the momentary 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu. The cry of the collective has to be answered and respected and that is what exactly the High Court has done by converting the decision of acquittal to that of conviction and imposed the sentence as per law." 14. It is a settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim of sexual assault without corroboration from any other evidence. The prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not accomplice of the crime and there is, no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration on material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principles of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness and if the Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial which would lend assurance to her testimony. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in a catena of decisions that the Court should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the statement of the prosecutrix is of sterling quality and inspires confidence, then corroboration from other evidence need not be sought, but where the statement of the prosecutrix is shaky and does not 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) inspire confidence then corroboration should be sought from other evidence collected during investigation. 16. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, it was held that it is now well settled that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc. if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. 17. In the case of Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191, it was held that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Paras 9 to 14 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- "9.In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658, this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under:- “16.A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus and Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248, this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under:- 12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do. 11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.: AIR 1996 SC 1393, this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: “8...The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix.... The courts must, while evaluating evidence remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.... Seeking corroboration of her statement before replying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, amounts to adding insult to injury.... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances… ** ** ** ** 21….The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. 12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1963, this Court held that rape is not mere a physical assault, rather it often distracts the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622, this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshswar v. State of Rajasthan. 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix" 18. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of pronouncements that in case of rape, evidence of prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, and finding of guilt in case of rape can be based upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, but apart from above, Hon'ble Apex court has also held that if the story put forth by the prosecutrix is improbable and belies logic, placing sole reliance upon her statement would be violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tameezduddin alias Tammu v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2009) 15 SCC 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) 566, wherein it has been held as under:- "9.It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that story is indeed improbable.” 19. Now reverting back to the facts of the case on hand. The moot point involved for consideration in this appeal is whether evidence adduced by the prosecution is credible and worthy of credence. The child victim who appeared in the witness box as PW-3 did not support the case of prosecution, hence, she was declared hostile. She specifically deposed that the accused had not taken her anywhere and he had also not committed any sexual intercourse with her. She was cross-examined at length by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, nothing favourable could be elicited from her lengthy cross- examination. 20. PW-1, who is the aunt of the victim, deposed that on 17.07.2015 at about 6.15 PM she was informed telephonically by the father of the prosecutrix that his daughter was missing after 3 PM on 17.07.2015 and on this information, she alongwith her husband proceeded towards his village, and kept on searching the prosecutrix here and there in the neighborhood, but she could not be traced till late 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) night. On 18.07.2015 around 10 PM, the prosecutrix reached her home, so she informed telephonically to her husband that the prosecutrix had reached their house, who told her to bring the prosecutrix to Durga Ghati. On reaching Durga Ghati, her husband and father of the prosecutrix met there in the presence of the police party and the prosecutrix disclosed to the police that she was asked by the accused telephonically to accompany him for the purpose of walking somewhere, On this, she went to village Maanju, where the accused had taken her to village Kashyalu and there she was kept in the house of one Hari Ram and was subjected to sexual intercourse. 21. PW-2 is the complainant/father of the victim and he stated that on 17.07.2015 when he was on duty in the hotel, he received a telephonic call from his wife that their daughter was missing from the house after 3 PM, so he and his brother went to search the prosecutrix here and there in the neighbourhood, but she could not be traced and on next day on 18.07.2015, he went to the police station for reporting the matter. Thereafter, he alongwith his brother and police again went to Durga Ghati in search of the prosecutrix and since they could not trace the prosecutrix at Durga Ghati, therefore, they went to village Khanalag, where father of the accused was present in the house, who was asked by the police about his son, who kept on contacting the accused telephonically, but the accused could not be contacted. On 18.07.2015, 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) around 10 PM, he was telephonically informed by his sister-in-law that the prosecutrix had been sent to Seri and she was brought to Durga Ghati by his sister-in-law and after that the prosecutrix was brought to the police station, where her statement was recorded by the police, wherein she disclosed that she was asked by the accused to reach Maanju as he wanted to take her for strolling and thereafter she was taken by the accused from Maanju to Kashyalu, where she was subjected to sexual intercourse. 22. PW-17 SI Jeet Ram, who is the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 18.07.2015, the complainant came to the Police Station and filed complaint Ex.PW2/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW15/A was registered and thereafter, efforts were made to trace the prosecutrix. She was traced/found on Durga Ghatti Road near Shalaghat on the same day. He recorded her statement Ext.PW17/A under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 19.07.2015, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to RH, Solan due to nonavailability of lady doctor at CH, Arki and CHC, Kunihar. Thereafter, the prosecutrix got identified the spot at village Kashyalu where she stayed with the accused in the house of Hari Ram and she also got recovered double bed-sheet from the premises which was spread on the bed when the offence was committed, which was sealed in a cloth parcel by affixing seven seals of seal impression ‘N’ . 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) 23. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, PW-10 Dr.Savita Aggarwal had conducted medical examination of the victim and issued MLC Ext. PW10/B. The relevant portion of her deposition before the Court reads as under:- “……...No injury mark on any part of the body. Sec. Sexual characters well developed. Local examination: Pubic hair present, sample preserved and handed over to police. Labia Majora - well developed. No blood or semen - no injury mark. Labia Minora - Normal. Hymen - Torn - No fresh bleeding present. Vagina admitting one finger easily. P/S - No bleeding present, no injury mark. P/V - Cervix normal, Uterus normal. Vaginal swab taken, slides made and clothes taken and sealed and handed over to police for chemical analysis. The prosecutrix was advised x-ray shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip joint, knee joint, ankle joint for age estimation. The final opinion was reserved to be given after chemical examination report and radiologist opinion. However, I was of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse has not taken place. In this regard, I issued MLC Ex.PW10/B which in my hands and bears my signatures. On 7.9.2015 after going through the chemical examiner report and observations contained therein my final opinion remained the same as my initial opinion. The final opinion is Ex.PW10/C.” 24. The conclusion of SFSL report Ext. PX-1 is reproduced as under:- “(1) 1) Human semen and human blood was detected on exhibit-1a (underwear,‘K’) and exhibit-1b (pants, ‘K’). 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) (2) Human blood was detected on exhibit-1c (T-shirt, ‘K’). Semen was not detected on the exhibit. (3) Blood and semen was not detected on exhibit-1d (T- shirt, ‘K’), exhibit-1e (brassiere, ‘K’) and exhibit-8a (pubic hair, Lekh Raj). (4) Blood was detected in traces on exhibit-2 (pubic hair, ‘K’) which was insufficient for serological examination. Semen was not detected on the exhibit. (5) Blood was detected on exhibit-3 (vaginal slides, ‘K’). Semen was not detected on the exhibit. (6) Blood was detected on exhibit-4 (vaginal swab, ‘K’) and exhibit-5 (vaginal swab, ‘K’) which was insufficient for serological examination. Semen was not detected on the exhibits. (7) Human semen was detected on exhibit-6 (bed sheet) and exhibit-7 (underwear, Lekh Raj). Blood was not detected on the exhibits. (8) Human blood was detected in exhibit-8b (blood sample, Lekh Raj). (9) The hair found on exhibit-6 (bed sheet) were identified as mixture of human head hair and human pubic hair which could not be compared with the hair found in exhibit-2 (pubic hair, ‘K’) and exhibit-8 (pubic hair, Lekh Raj) due to insufficient quantity.” 25. The conclusion of SFSL report Ext. PX is reproduced as under:- “(i) An identical DNA profile was obtained from Exhibit-1a (underwear, ‘K’) and Exhibit-1b (pants, ‘K’) and this DNA profile matches completely with the DNA profile obtained from Exhibit-8b (blood sample, Lekh Raj). (ii) A mixed DNA profile was obtained from Exhibit-6 (bedsheet) and the components of this DNA profile do not match with the DNA profile obtained from Exhibit-8b (blood sample, Lekh Raj).” 26. Although, the Medical Officer (PW-10) deposed that as per her final opinion, there was nothing to suggest that no sexual intercourse had taken place. However, her such deposition does not 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) connect the accused with the commission of the offence of rape upon the victim. The perusal of deposition of the Medical Officer (PW-10) shows that there were no injury marks anywhere on the body of the victim. She also deposed that there was no mark of inflammation or any other external injury in inner or outer private parts of the victim. Medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution otherwise nowhere indicates towards sexual intercourse committed by the accused. The victim herself while appearing in the witness-box as PW-3, specifically deposed that the accused had not taken her anywhere and had not committed any sexual intercourse with her. Although, the Medical Officer had deposed that she had taken pubic hair, vaginal swab and vaginal slides of the victim and handed them over to police for chemical analysis. However, as per SFSL report Ext. PX, no human semen was detected on the pubic hair, vaginal swab and vaginal slides of the victim. Though as per report of Biology and Serology Division Ext.PX, the DNA profile obtained from the underwear and pants of the victim, matched completely with the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the accused. However, no reliance can be placed upon the same as the victim herself had deposed before the Court that the clothes, which were preserved by the Medical Officer, did not belong to her. Moreover, the DNA profile obtained from the bed-sheet did not march with the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) accused. Therefore, from the perusal of the aforesaid reports Ext.PX and PX-1, it cannot be said that the accused had committed rape upon the victim. The prosecution has failed to obtain any report from the FSL Biology and Serology Division to the effect that any DNA profile obtained from the vaginal swab and vaginal slides matched with the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the accused. The Medical Officer (PW-10) admitted in her cross-examination that she had given her opinion regarding possibility of sexual intercourse on the basis of torn hymen and corroborated evidence of chemical examiner and she admitted that she had not taken any opinion regarding the time of sexual intercourse. 27. Thus, in the present case, the learned trial Court has erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellants because the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. It is a settled preposition of law that the prosecution is required to establish its case against an accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Whenever, a doubt arises in the persecution story, benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. Since in the present case, the victim had not supported the prosecution case during trial and the reports of the SFSL Ext.PX and Ext. PX-1 are also rendered doubtful, the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charges 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) framed against him. It was required to be established by the prosecution by leading clinching evidence that the clothes of the victim, worn by her at the time of incident, had reached the Forensic Science Laboratory and thereafter the examination was conducted by the Laboratory with regard to the DNA profile lifted from the clothes and the blood samples of the appellant. However, the fact that the clothes, which had reached the Forensic Science Laboratory, belong to the victim, has not been duly established by the prosecution. 28. There is no doubt that rape causes great distress and humiliation to the victim of rape but at the same time false allegation of committing a rape also causes humiliation and damage to the accused. An accused has also rights which are to be protected and the possibility of false implication has to be ruled out. The Supreme Court in Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 4704 had in this context noted as follows:- "5…..The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a person has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case." 29. In Abbas Ahmed Choudhary Versus State of Assam, (2010) 12 SCC 115, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para-11 that:- "11.We are conscious of the fact that in a matter 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully." 30. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court fell in error in ordering the conviction of the appellant and the reasons given by the trial Court in its judgment/order for convicting him are perverse and not at all sustainable. Hence, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2021, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, HP, in Sessions Trial No.47-S/7 of 2020/15 of 2018, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 31. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the appellant. Release warrant be prepared forthwith. 32. In view of the provisions of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 33. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge May 30, 2025 (V.Himalvi) 21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16997 ) Digitally signed by VIRENDER BAHADUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e289 8117bfa738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S= Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b8498 3689d027cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADUR Reason: I am approving this document Location: Date: 2025.06.02 14:06:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 VIRENDER BAHADUR