Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Newton Mondal @ Niwetan Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 13 September, 2024

Author: Tirthankar Ghosh

Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh

                         IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH

                              C.R.A. (SB) 200 of 2023
                                       With
                                 CRAN 3 of 2024

                          Newton Mondal @ Niwetan Mondal.
                                        versus
                          The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Appellant                        : Mr. Surajit Basu,
                                           Ms. Jasika Alam,
                                           Mr. Pritam Chakraborty.

For the State                            : Mr. Rana Mukherjee,
                                           Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar,
                                           Mr. Subhasish Datta.
Reserved On         :      12.08.2024.

Judgement On        :      13.09.2024.

Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence dated 04.10.2023 and 05.10.2023 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No.

04/February/2016 arising out of Sessions Case No. 156 of 2015, thereby

convicting the appellant under Sections 341/366/376 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentencing him as follows:

(i) For the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC - Simple

Imprisonment for one month;

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC - Rigorous

Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, i.d. to

suffer further R.I. for 3 (three) months;

(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC - Rigorous

Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, i.d. to

suffer further R.I. for 3 (three) months.

Nalhati Police Station case no. 92/10 dated 17.04.2010 was registered

for investigation on the basis of a written complaint filed by 'Y' (brother of the

victim 'X'). The allegations made in the written complaint addressed to the

Officer-in-charge, Nalhati Police Station were to the effect that the accused

promised to marry his sister 'X' but she used to avoid him. However, the

accused used to visit her during day and night and even when his sister used

to come to market then the accused would go around the road and threaten to

beat her. The incident was informed to villagers, the villagers called the

accused for settlement/meeting however, the accused did not attend the

settlement/meeting and disobeyed the villagers. On 28.03.2010 at about 10.00

am when the victim had been to Nalhati market from then onwards she did not

return home. The complainant alleges that his sister is a widow having two

minor sons and the accused kidnapped her and confined her at a secret place.

On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Nalhati Police Station registered

the case under Section 341/363/366/506 of the Indian Penal Code and the

Officer-in-charge was pleased to endorse the case to Sub-inspector Sunil Kr.

Dey (PW14) for investigation. The investigation of the case was thereafter

handed over to Sub-inspector Samir Kr. Dutta (PW15) who submitted a report

in final form and prayed for discharging the accused. A further investigation

was held by Mojammel Mondal (PW16), Sub-Inspector of police and after

conclusion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused

under Section 341/363/366/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned A.C.J.M., Rampurhat after complying with the relevant

provisions of law was pleased to commit the case to the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Rampurhat, Birbhum. The learned Trial Court thereafter by

its order dated 17th February, 2016 was pleased to frame charges under

Sections 341/363/366/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the

charge was read over to the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 16 witnesses

which included PW1, Kartick Let, co-villager; PW2, Santana Let, co-villager;

PW3, 'Y', complainant, brother of the victim; PW4, Sunil Let, co-villager; PW5

Kalpana Let, co-villager; PW6, Tuktuki Let, co-villager; PW7, Santosh Maharaj,

scribe; PW8, Binoy Kumar Nonia, Judicial Magistrate who recorded the

statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.; PW9, Dr. Sricharan

Halder, doctor who examined the accused; PW10, 'Z', sister of the victim;

PW11, Jakir Sk., owner of the land where the complainant was engaged as a

cultivator; PW10, Narayan Dhar, brother-in-law of the victim; PW13, 'X',

victim; PW14, Sunil Kr. Dey, first investigating officer of the case; PW15, Samir

Kr. Dutta, S.I. of police and second investigating officer of the case who

submitted the final report; PW16, Mojammel Mondal, Sub-inspector of police

who carried out further investigation and submitted charge-sheet.

PW1, Kartick Let is a co-villager who deposed that he knew the

complainant 'Y', as also the accused Newton Mondal and identified him in

Court. He deposed that he knew that the victim 'X' was the elder sister of the

complainant, however, he denied of having heard any incident relating to the

victim 'X' and the accused Newton Mondal. He was declared hostile by the

prosecution.

PW2, Santana Let is a co-villager who identified the accused in Court

and deposed that she knew both the complainant 'Y' as well as the accused

Newton Mondal and also had knowledge that the victim was the elder sister of

the complainant who was a widow and had two sons. However, she denied of

any knowledge in respect of the incident relating to the accused and the

victim. She was also declared hostile by the prosecution.

PW3 is 'Y', complainant of the case who deposed that the accused is a

resident of Akalipur village. He identified the accused in Court and deposed

that the victim 'X' is his elder sister who is a widow having two minor sons. He

stated that the incident took place on 28.03.2010 at about 10.00 am when his

elder sister went to Nalhati Market and did not return. He alleged that the

accused Newton Mondal kidnapped his elder sister that is why she did not

return. According to him the accused confined his elder sister in a hilly area

within a forest where she was raped and threatened of being killed. He further

deposed that his elder sister was confined for two days and he came to know

regarding the incident after the same was disclosed by his elder sister when

she returned home. As such after having knowledge regarding the incident he

lodged a written complaint at Nalhati Police Station which was drafted by one

Santosh Maharaj as per his instruction. He identified the complaint along with

his signature which was admitted in evidence. In his cross-examination he

replied that his elder sister's house is situated after five houses away from his

house and denied also the suggestion relating to kidnap and rape of not having

taken place.

PW4, Sunil Let, identified the accused in Court and deposed that he

knew the accused as well as the complainant. He was aware regarding the

victim being the elder sister of the complainant. However, he denied of any

knowledge in respect of any incident between the accused and the victim. His

cross-examination was declined on behalf of the accused.

PW5, Kalpana Let, identified the accused in Court and deposed that she

knew the accused as well as the complainant and was aware regarding the fact

that the victim was the elder sister of complainant. However, she denied of any

knowledge relating to any incident between the victim and the accused. She

was declared hostile by the prosecution. In cross-examination on behalf of the

accused she replied that she had no bitter relationship with the complainant

or his elder sister.

PW6, Tuktuki Let, identified the accused in Court and deposed that she

knew the accused as well as the complainant who are her co-villagers. She was

also acquainted regarding the fact that the victim is the elder sister of the

complainant. However, she denied of any knowledge relating to any incident

between the victim and the accused.

PW7, Santosh Maharaj is scribe of the FIR who deposed that he wrote

the complaint as per instruction of the complainant 'Y', read over the same to

the complainant and after being satisfied the complainant signed it. He also

signed on the complaint as a scribe. He identified his signature, accordingly

the same was admitted in evidence.

PW8, Binoy Kumar Nonia is the Judicial Magistrate who at the relevant

point of time was the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Rampurhat. He deposed

that on 05.05.2010 as per order of learned A.C.J.M., Ramurhat he recorded

the statement of the victim in his chamber under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. after

observing all legal procedures. The victim was identified and produced before

him by a lady Home Guard namely, Jahanara Bibi of Nalhati Police Station

and after identification she left his chamber. After observing all formalities the

statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and she signed

all the pages. After conclusion of the statement he certified the same. He

identified the statement along with his signature and seal. The statement of

the victim as such was admitted in evidence.

PW9, Dr. Sricharan Haldar is Medical Officer of Rampurhat Government

Medical College and Hospital, who deposed that on 25.09.2015 he examined

Newton Mondal aged about 37 years for his potency test. On examination he

arrived at his conclusion and accordingly prepared the report with opinion that

there was nothing to suggest that the male examined is not capable of

performing sexual act. The medical report was admitted in evidence.

PW10, 'Z' is the sister of the victim who deposed that the accused

Newton Mondal used to offer ill proposal to her sister for residing with him,

and once the victim was found missing from Nalhati Market. She was searched

but could not be traced. After one month she came back to their paternal

house at Monigram, Bhadrapur and on being asked about her absence for a

month, she disclosed that she was kidnapped by Newton Mondal and confined

in an unknown place by him. According to the witness the victim also alleged

regarding torture being inflicted by the accused Newton Mondal and she being

ravished by him. The witness stated that the incident took place on 28th of

March few years ago. The witness also stated that she was illiterate and so she

could not tell exact year when her sister was kidnapped. She identified the

accused in Court and stated that police interrogated her five years after the

date of the incident. In cross-examination she answered that she was a

resident of Dankuni for about 25 years and further stated that she heard that

the accused Newton had a family consisting of his wife and children. Further

she stated that the victim was kidnapped forcefully with her mouth being tied

with a cloth. She was taken by a vehicle. According to her a General Diary was

lodged with the police officer of Nalhati Police Station after few days of the

victim being not traceable.

PW11 is Jakir Sk. who deposed that he knew the complainant as well as

the accused Newton Mondal and identified the accused in Court. He further

stated that the complainant is cultivating his land and the victim happens to

be the sister of the complainant who was a widow and had two sons. He was

informed relating to the incident in the year 2010 by the complainant that his

sister was missing from Nalhati Bazaar. According to him the complainant

stated that his sister was kidnapped and was raped. In cross-examination,

however, he stated that he has deposed on the basis of what he heard from the

complainant.

PW12, Narayan Dhar is the brother-in-law of the victim, who deposed

that the victim was a widow having two minor sons and the accused used to

send ill proposal of marrying her. The victim felt irritated as he teased and

assaulted her. On 28.03.2010 at about 10.00 am when the victim had been to

Nalhati Market she was kidnapped by the accused and confined at a secret

place. He also stated that the victim was confined for one month and 20 days,

when she was raped continuously but somehow she fled away from the

unknown place. He heard the incident as narrated by the victim after she

returned. He identified the accused in Court and further deposed that as the

mental condition of the victim deteriorated because of bad experiences she felt

ashamed of the incident. In cross-examination he replied that on 28.03.2010

he came to know about disappearance of his sister-in-law and the same was

informed by his brother-in-law. He deposed in Court as per the version what

was stated to him by his brother-in-law at the relevant point of time. He also

narrated the same facts to the police authorities which he heard from his

brother-in-law.

PW13, 'X' is the victim who identified the accused in Court and deposed

that the complainant was her younger brother. She narrated the incident by

stating that initially she did not know the accused but subsequently she knew

when he inflicted torture upon her. On 28.03.2010 at about 9.00 am she went

to the market. The accused earlier also irritated her in different way on the

road and also assaulted her. Over this issue she complained to Nalhati Police

Station, earlier ventilating her grievances to the police. Prior to the incident

she had been to the police station when police officer asked her to come with

paper. Accordingly she went there and when she was returning from police

station the accused along with three persons restrained her on the road and

dragged her in a Tata Sumo vehicle to an unknown place and confined her. At

the said place the accused raped her and confined her for about a month. She

narrated to the Court that she could not go out from the said place as she was

guarded all along by the accused and sometime by others. The accused left her

and she thereafter boarded a train from Loharpur railway station under

Nalhati Police Station from where she returned to her home and went to the

police station subsequently. She divulged the incident to the police officer.

Being an illiterate lady she did not know where she was confined. According to

her as she protested against the torture by the accused she was abducted and

ravished by the accused. Additionally she deposed that initially she went to the

police station for ventilating her grievances and there a document was

prepared by Bhomor Vakil but the accused did not abide by the terms of

settlement and continued his torture upon her in different ways. She stated in

Court that she was abducted from Nalhati Market and she was a widow having

two minor children. She repeated that the accused Newton Mondal along with

others raped her, however, she did not know the name of the other persons.

She was medically treated at Rampurhat Hospital where she signed on the

medical paper. She identified her signature in the medical paper. Her signature

was admitted in evidence. She was also produced before the Magistrate and

her statement was recorded. She identified her signature in the statement

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which was also admitted in evidence. Lastly she

stated in her examination-in-chief the facts which she deposed in Court was

also narrated to the police authorities. In cross-examination she stated that

except her signature she is unable to read or write. Further when she was

confronted on behalf of the accused she replied that for responding to natures

call she came out from the room and used field for defecation and used water

from a small pond nearby. She described that there was no bedding and spent

one month in a dark place. Four persons used to ravish/rape her for about

four/five times a day regularly. She reiterated that the accused and others

committed such mischief forcibly. She sustained injuries on different parts of

her body. After one month she came back from there when she got an

opportunity. The day when she left nobody raped her, but the day before all

the four persons rapped her for four to five times. On the very day when she

returned she went to Nalhati Police and narrated all the facts to Darogababu.

However, she did not sign the same but her brother/complainant signed it.

She was sent to hospital where she narrated the incident to the doctor. She

also replied that she showed all the injuries which were inflicted upon her,

including her private parts. She was unable to state the registration number of

the vehicle and on a suggestion being advanced on behalf of the accused she

denied the fact that she and her husband worked under the accused Newton

and as there was misunderstanding she went to the house of Newton and

complained to his wife that she would get money. She denied of any such

incident not having taken place.

PW14, SI Sunil Kumar Dey, is the first investigating officer of the case

who deposed that on a missing complaint the Officer-in-charge started Nalhati

Police Station case no. 92/2010 dated 17.04.2010 and entrusted the case to

him. After getting charge of the investigation he perused the FIR, visited the

place of occurrence, drew rough sketch map with index, examined available

witnesses and recorded their statement, the victim girl was sent for recording

her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement was also collected

by him. As he was under transfer he handed over the Case Diary to the Officer-

in-charge, Nalhati Police Station on or about 17.06.2010.

PW15, SI Samir Kumar Dutta deposed that he was handed over the

charge of investigation of Nalhati Police Station case no. 92/2010 dated

17.04.2010 and on receipt of the documents he initiated the investigation and

according to him as he did not find anything he submitted a final report vide

FRT no. 12/2012 dated 31.01.2012 and discharged the FIR named accused.

PW16, Mojammel Mondal, Sub-inspector of police was entrusted on and

from 18.09.2015 for carrying out further investigation of Nalhati Police Station

case no. 92/2010 dated 17.04.2010. He arrested the accused Newton Mondal

on 21.09.2015. The accused was remanded to police custody for five days and

his statement was recorded, further he was sent for medical examination. The

medical report of the accused was collected. He also collected the medical

report of the victim. He examined the witnesses Jayanti Dhar, Narayan Dhar

and Jakir Sk. recorded their statement and on conclusion of investigation

submitted charge-sheet no. 280/15 dated 21.10.2015 against the accused

under Section 341/363/366/376/506 of IPC.

Mr. Surajit Basu, Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant

submitted that there was inconsistency in the version of the victim both in her

statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the

Learned Magistrate as well as her deposition before the Court. Her narratives

were scripted and exaggerated in such a manner that the same strikes at the

root of the prosecution case thereby making her an unreliable witness.

According to the learned advocate if the FIR is taken to be true then the victim

was missing since 28.03.2010 and there were no complaints regarding her

whereabouts as the complaint was lodged on 17.04.2010. The victim in her

statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the

learned Magistrate stated that for 1 month and 20 days prior to recording of

her statement she was abducted by the appellant along with others in a Tata

Sumo vehicle. She was thereafter taken to a hilly area where she was confined

in a dark room and ravished, however, she managed to flee away after boarding

a train. Although, she in her deposition stated that she had narrated the

incident to the doctor but in the medical report the incident is not reflected.

Learned advocate also stated that in response to the question relating to her

being confined for more than one month, in cross-examination improbable

circumstances were narrated by her and the same crumbles the fact of her

abduction as also probabilize the defence case that there were some enmity in

respect of the victim having grievance of receipt of some money for which she

has falsely implicated the present appellant in connection with the instant case

which would be evident from the cross-examination of PW13 as well as the

answer of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

wherein the accused stated that "I went to her house for demanding money

lend to her and she filed this false case. She started to work under Jakir". The

conduct of the complainant being the brother of the victim and other relations

are also not above suspicion as they did not lodge any complaint relating to her

whereabouts for a considerable period of time when she was missing and

almost after 20 days lodged the complaint with the Nalhati Police Station. It

was submitted that having regard to the aforesaid circumstances the evidence

of the victim who is the sole individual for narrating the incident cannot be

relied upon. To that effect learned advocate referred to the judgments of Nirmal

Premkumar & Anr. -Vs. - State represented by Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC

OnLine 260; Juwar Singh & Ors. -Vs. - State of Madhya Pradesh, 1980 (Supp)

SCC 417; Santosh -Vs. - State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443. Lastly, it was

submitted that having regard to the factual circumstances of the present case

and the proposition of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments,

interference is called for in respect of the judgment and order of conviction and

sentenced so passed by the learned trial Court and the same as such should be

set aside.

Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the State on the

other hand opposed such contention and submitted that in cases of sexual

assault/offences the sole testimony of the prosecutrix assumes significance, as

such offences are committed in seclusion. To search for corroborative materials

in such type of offences are practically impossible as hardly there will be

witnesses available in front of whom the offences have been committed.

Additionally it was submitted that considering the background from where the

lady belongs, who is illiterate, it cannot be expected that she would have the

courage to forthwith taken action, although in evidence it has surfaced that

she had been to the police station on several occasions but the police

authorities on one pretext or the other delayed and/or did not cooperate with

her so far as her harassment which was inflicted by the accused upon the

victim. According to the learned advocate for the State the judgment and order

of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned trial Court do not call for

any interference and as such the same should be affirmed.

I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant as

well as that of the State and I find that the lady was missing from 17.03.2010

and not even a missing diary was lodged or any information communicated to

the police authorities. There were no witnesses relied upon by the prosecution

relating to the place of occurrence which is a market place, as such the

question of abduction from a market place and taking her away by a Tata

Sumo vehicle do not inspire any confidence. Majority of the prosecution

witnesses do not support the prosecution case or their deposition before the

Court is on the basis of hearsay evidence. As such the prosecution case is

based upon the evidence of PW3, complainant 'Y'; PW10, 'Z' (sister); PW12

(brother-in-law) and PW13, 'X' (victim). So far as PW10 and PW12 are

concerned they heard the incident that on 28.03.2010 the victim was abducted

and she was missing and they deposed that a General Diary was lodged with

the Police Station regarding the victim which is not traceable, however, no such

General Diary was produced before the Court so the other witnesses whose

deposition are of significance are the complainant and the victim. The

complainant was residing in the same locality as that of the victim and is her

brother. In spite of the same there is nothing in evidence to suggest that any

information was available to the local police station in respect of the victim who

was missing. Thus there is no corroborative evidence which lend support to the

version of abduction as such the sole testimony of the prosecutrix in this case

assumes importance. So far as her version is concerned in her statement under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate she narrated that

when she was returning after complaining against the appellant from Nalhati

Police Station, she was abducted by few persons who made her unconscious

and took her to an unknown destination in a hilly area. She further stated that

the accused were four in number and all the four persons raped her. She,

however, managed to escape from them and she apprehends that such act was

done at the behest of the accused Newton Mondal. Thus in the statement

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she did not allege that the accused/appellant

ravished her rather she stated that she was sexually abused by four unknown

persons. In her deposition before the Court she stated that the accused along

with three other persons restrained her on the road and dragged her in a Tata

Sumo vehicle to an unknown place and kept her there and at the said place the

accused committed rape upon her and confined her there for one month.

Additionally, she also stated that the accused Newton Mondal along with others

committed rape upon her and she do not know the other persons. The victim

also before the doctor who examined her did not narrate any fact of sexual

abuse committed at the instance of all the persons or the appellant.

Having considered the aforesaid facts which surfaced in the present case

it would be pertinent to consider the settled proposition of law so far as the

appreciation principles relating to the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is

concerned. In State of Rajasthan -Vs. - Babu Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206, it has

been held in paragraphs 8 and 9 which are as follows:

"8. Mr Jain assails the acquittal of the respondent under Section 376 of the Penal Code and contends that the trial court ought to have accepted the evidence of Kirti (PW 3). He submits that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the trial court erred in rejecting her evidence and acquitting the respondent. In support of the submission he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Vijay v. State of M.P. [(2010) 8 SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639] Relevant para of the judgment reads as under: (SCC p. 198, para 14) "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."

9. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr Jain that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable and for that no corroboration is required. It has often been said that oral testimony can be classified into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In case of wholly reliable testimony of a single witness, the conviction can be founded without corroboration. This principle applies with greater vigour in case the nature of offence is such that it is committed in seclusion. In case prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony of a single witness, the court has no option than to acquit the accused."

Further in Dinesh Jaiswal -Vs. - State of M.P., (2010) 3 SCC 232, in

paragraph 10 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to held:

"10. Mr C.D. Singh has however placed reliance on Moti Lal case [(2008) 11 SCC 20 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 950] to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances. There can be no quarrel with this proposition (and it has been so emphasised by this Court time and again) but to hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story, is an argument that can never be accepted. The test always is as to whether the given story prima facie inspires confidence. We are of the opinion that the present matter is indeed an exceptional one."

In Rai Sandeep -Vs. - State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 while

reversing the order of conviction and holding that the prosecutrix was not a

witness to be held as a 'sterling witness', it was opined by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in paragraph 22 which is as follows:

"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and

consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

Additionally in Krishan Kumar Malik -Vs. - State of Haryana, (2011) 7

SCC 130 while dealing with solitary evidence of the victim in matters relating to

sexual offences the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 31 and 32 was

pleased to hold as follows:

"31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences.

32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant."

Very recently in Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. -Vs. - State represented by

Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260, relied upon by the appellant in

paragraph 15, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:

"15. ......... in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a "sterling witness"

without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistences

excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded."

Thus, on an appreciation of the materials available in this case, firstly

non-explanation relating to the delay of absence of the victim for a long period

and no information being made available to the police authorities or any

authorities for that purpose without any explanation being furnished raises a

serious concern. Secondly, the variance in the version of the statement under

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the victim and her deposition

before the Court along with no witnesses being examined by the prosecution at

a busy market place from where the victim was allegedly abducted in a Tata

Sumo vehicle raises a doubt regarding the factual foundation of the

prosecution case and do not inspire this Court to arrive at a conclusion of guilt

so far as the present appellant is concerned in respect of the charges which he

was called upon to answer.