State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Ved Prakash & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 12728 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr. A. No. 217 of 2018 Reserved on: 29.08.2023

.

                            Date of decision: 01.09.2023





    State of Himachal Pradesh                             ...Appellant





                            Versus

    Ved Prakash & Ors.                                    ...Respondents
    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant : Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G., Mr J.

S. Guleria, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents Ved

Prakash, Ajay and Mithin @ Sahil of the offences punishable

under Sections 120-B, 376-D, 506 of the Indian Penal Code,

Section 3 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(iii)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereas respondent Mohinder was

acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B,

376-D, 506 of IPC and Section 3 of the POCSO Act, the State

has filed the instant appeal.

2. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the

month of September, 2015, when the victim was present at

her house in village 'A', she received a telephonic call from

.

respondent No. 4 Mithin @ Sahil, who asked her to go to 'B'.

The victim came to 'B', where the respondents Mohinder,

Mithin @ Sahil, Ajay and another person met her. On asking

this person, he disclosed that he was employed in veterinary

dispensary at 'BE'. They offered cold drink to the victim. The

respondents Mohinder and Ajay took the victim to 'BE' on a

motorcylce and thereafter she became unconscious. When the

victim regained her conscious, she found herself without

clothes and noticed that the respondent Ajay Kumar was

making her videography and respondents Mohinder, Ved

Prakash and Ajay were sexually assaulting her. Thereafter, she

again became unconscious and when she regained conscious

she asked the respondents to take her to her house and

thereafter they left her at her house.

3. The victim thereafter used to talk with Mithin @

Sahil on his mobile, but Mithin, according to her, had not

committed any sexual assault with her. Thereafter, victim

came to know that her photographs were uploaded on

Whatsapp. Thereafter, she told this fact to her parents and

consequently FIR came to be registered on 05.05.2016 i.e.

after eight (8) months of the incident.

4. During investigation, it was found that respondent

Mohinder Singh was also from scheduled castes community,

therefore, he was not charged with the offence under the said

.

section while the other co-accused were charged under

Section 3(1)(iii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement

of accused Ajay Kumar under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act, which led to recovery of mobile phone. The spot

map was prepared. The respondents were arrested, got

medically examined and the samples preserved by the

Medical Officers were sent to Chemical Examiner and report of

Chemical Analyst was obtained. The birth certificate of the

victim was obtained. Statements of witnesses were recorded

and after completion of codal formalities, the challan was

prepared and presented in the Court.

6. Finding prima facie case, charges for the offences

(supra) were framed against the respondents to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution in order to establish its case

examined as many as 29 witnesses and after closure of

prosecution evidence, respondents were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution case

and pleaded their innocence. However, no evidence in

defence was led by the respondents.

8. The learned Trial Court after recording the

.

statements of the witnesses and evaluating the same

acquitted all the accused persons for the offences charged

and aggrieved thereby the State has filed the instant appeal.

9. At the outset, it needs to be observed that rape is

a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys

the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. "Rape" not

only lowers the dignity of a woman but also mars her

reputation. The plight of the woman and shock suffered by the

victim can be well visualized. The victim of rape grows with

traumatic experience and an unforgettable shame haunted by

the memory of the disaster forcing her to a state of terrifying

melancholia. The torment on the victim has the potentiality to

corrode the poise and equanimity of any civilized society. It

has been rightly said that whereas a murderer destroys the

physical frame of a victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the

soul of a helpless female. The offence of "Rape" is grave by its

nature, which warrants a strong deterrent by judicial hand.

10. In State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh, AIR

2004 SC 1290, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

This Court dealt with the issue and held that rape is violative of victim's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. So, the courts should deal with

such cases sternly and severely. Sexual violence, apart from being a dehumanizing act, is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a woman. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her

.

self-esteem and dignity as well. It degrades and

humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic

experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries, but leaves behind a scar on the most cherished position of a woman, i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and chastity. Rape is not only an offence

against the person of a woman, rather a crime against the entire society. It is a crime against basic human rights and also violates the most cherished

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution."

11. In Jugendra Singh Vs. State of UP, (2012) 6

SCC 297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:-

"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 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."

.

12. In Shyam Narian Vs. The State of NCT Delhi ,

(2013) 7 SCC 77, the Hon'ble Supeme Court has elaborately

dealt with the issue as discussed in Madan Gopal Kaakar

Vs. Naval Dubey and Anr., (1992) 3 SCC 204, State of

Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bodem Sundra Rao, AIR 1996 SC

530 and State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa, (2000) 4

SCC 75 and has held that :

"It is an assault on the individuality and inherent dignity

of a woman with the mindset that she should be elegantly servile to men. Rape is a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the

holy body of a woman and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed."

13. Equally settled is the proposition of law that

conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim of

sexual assault without corroboration from any other evidence.

The statement of the victim is more reliable than any other

witness. Where the testimony of victim of sexual assault

instills the confidence in court, the same can be relied for

conviction of the accused. It is also a well settled principle of

law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on

the testimony of the victim is not a requirement of law but a

guidance to prudence under the given circumstances.

.

14. In Vijay @ Chinee vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

dealt with the issue and held that :

"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."

15. It is a settled legal proposition that once the

statement of victim inspires confidence and is accepted by the

court as such, conviction can be based on the solitary

evidence of the victim and no corroboration would be required

unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the

court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of

testimony of the victim as a condition for judicial reliance is

not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under

the given facts and circumstances.

16. There are catena of judgments passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that only the

deposition of the prosecutrix by itself is also sufficient to

record conviction for the offence of rape if that testimony

inspires confidence and has complete link of truth. In Md. Ali

Vs. State of UP, 2015 (3) SCALE 274, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that "Be it noted, there can be no iota of doubt

that on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim, if it is

.

unimpeachable and beyond reproach, a conviction can be

based and in Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Jharkhand reported

in (2013) 14 SCC 481, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that "There is no prohibition in law to convict the accused of

rape on the basis of sole testimony of the victim and the law

does not require that her statement be corroborated by the

statements of other witnesses.

17. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies

should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable

prosecution case. A victim complaining of having been a

victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the

crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of

probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high

degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the

subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court

finds it difficult to accept the version of the victim on its face

value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which

may lend assurance to her testimony.

18. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law,

we, on a careful analysis of the testimony of the victim, find a

large number of contradictions, inconsistencies,

concealments, improvements and exaggeration, which casts a

serious doubt and lead us to find it difficult to rely upon her

.

version.

19. Adverting to her statement, the victim, when

examined as PW1, stated that she was 10 th pass and her date

of birth was 11.07.1999. In the month of September, 2015,

she had received a telephonic call from accused Mithin @

Sahil, who asked her to come at place 'B'. She went to place

'B', where Ajay and Mohinder offered her cold drink and

thereafter Ajay and Mohinder told her that they will leave her

at her house. Both of them took her to ''BE' on motorcycle.

When she reached 'BE', Ved Prakash and Mithin@ Sahil came

there. She became unconscious at 'BE'. When she regained

conscious, she found herself in naked condition near

veterinary hospital at 'BE'. She also found that respondent

Ajay was making her videography. All the respondents had

committed sexual offence with her and had threatened to do

away with her life.

20. She further deposed that thereafter respondent

Mithin @ Sahil made a call from his mobile number on her

mobile number. She did not narrate the story to any one due

to fear or threat. The respondents uploaded her video on

Whatsapp and when she saw it she told the facts to her family

members on 05.05.2016. She went to the police station with

her parents and brother and lodged FIR Ext. PW1/A. She was

.

thereafter taken to hospital for medical examination but she

refused to undergo the same. But later she agreed for medical

examination and after medical examination the doctor issued

MLC Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, her statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate in the Court. On the

next date i.e. 07.05.2016, she had shown the place of

occurrence 'BE' to the police and on her identification, the

police took the photographs of the spot. She also showed the

place at 'B' where she was offered cold drink by the

respondents. She identified the respondents as the same

persons, who had committed sexual offence with her.

21. In her cross-examination by learned counsel for

respondent Ved Prakash, she admitted that respondent Mithin

@ Sahil was known to her for last one year prior to

.

September, 2015. She stated that when she left the house

with Sahil, her mother was also at home. The cold drink was

stated to have been offered to her on the road side. She

further stated that Ved Prakash was not known to her nor she

had met Ved Prakash. She admitted that after September,

2015 she used to go to different places normally. However,

she denied that respondent Ved Praksh had been falsely

implicated.

22. In her cross-examination by learned counsel for

respondents Mohinder Singh and Ajay, she stated that she had

told the Magistrate that she was offered cold drink by

respondents in Dhaba at 'B'. She admitted that there was no

mention of dhaba in FIR Ext.PW1/A. She admitted that she had

refused for medical examination. She further admitted that

she had got written on MLC mark 'A' that she did not want

herself to be medically checked up. Self stated that earlier no

injection was administrated to her, therefore, under this

apprehension, she refused. She did not tell this fact to the

police.

23. In her cross-examination by learned counsel for

the respondent Sahil, she admitted that Sahil had not gone to

'BE' with her from the place 'B'. Self stated that he had come

.

later on. She admitted that she had told the police in FIR that

respondent Sahil had not committed any offence with her. She

also admitted that she had not told the name of Sahil to the

Magistrate at the time of recording her statement. She further

stated that all the respondents had threatened her why she

had not named Sahil.

24.

r to From the aforesaid statements, it would be noticed

that the victim had not mentioned the date when she was

telephonically called by respondent Mithin @ Sahil to come to

'B', the day, when she claimed to have been taken to 'BE'

where she was sexually assaulted by the respondents. The

information was given only in the next year after eight months

on 05.05.2016, when no sexual offence admittedly was

committed by any of the respondents with the victim. When

the victim makes not only a bald but vague statement where

even the date of incident was not mentioned, then it creates a

serious doubt about the story put-forth by the victim herself.

25. It would be noticed that victim has stated that

respondents offered cold drink at place 'B' and thereafter she

was taken to place 'BE' by respondents Ajay and Mohinder.

She further claimed that she became unconscious at place

'BE' and stated that when she regained conscious, she found

herself in a naked condition near the veterinary hospital at

.

'BE' where Ajay was making her video. She also stated that all

the respondents had committed sexual offence with her, but

this seems to be unreliable as she had become unconscious

and she was not knowing about the occurrence as per the

version put-forth by herself.

26.

As observed above, the specific case of the victim

is that all the respondents had committed sexual offence with

her and threatened her but in her statement under Section

164 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/C, she stated that only the respondents

Ajay, Mohinder and Ved Prakash had sexually assaulted her,

whereas she had not mentioned the name of respondent

Mithin @ Sahil. If the victim was in a naked condition, we

really fail to see any reason why the victim had not reported

the matter to her family members or to the police immediately

or at best within a reasonable time and why she waited for

more than eight months to lodge FIR, that too, when she

claimed that she came to know that her photographs/video

have been uploaded on the Whatsapp. Meaning thereby, had

the photographs of the victim not been uploaded on the

Whatsapp, the victim would have not registered the FIR and

kept mum.

27. The victim had mentioned in the FIR that she

became unconscious twice but this fact has nowhere been

mentioned in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.

.

PW1/C. In FIR Ext. PW1/A, the victim had stated that all the

accused persons had taken her to place 'BE' from where she

had gone to her house, but before the Court, the victim stated

that only respondent Mithin @ Sahil had taken her to house in

a bus.

28.

The victim has stated before the Magistrate that the

cold drink was offered to her in a dhaba at 'B' whereas in the

Court she has stated that cold drink was offered to her on the

road side and there is otherwise no mention of Dhaba in FIR

Ext. PW1/A.

29. In the given facts and circumstances, this Court is

now required to see whether any other evidence has been

adduced by the prosecution on record to support the version

of the victim.

30. In this context, one would have to fall back on the

medical examination. It would be noticed that when the victim

was taken for medical examination, she initially refused to

undergo the same as is evident from MLC Ext. PW5/B. It is

thereafter, she agreed for medical examination on the basis of

which MLC Ext. PW1/B was prepared.

31. Now, in case, the MLC is perused, it would be

noticed that there is no mark of external injury on the body of

the victim nor any final opinion was given by the doctor as per

.

MLC Ext. PW1/B. In the MLC, it has been mentioned that the

victim was subjected to sexual assault. The doctor had taken

the sample of vaginal swab, vaginal slide, pregnancy kit,

which was sent for chemical examination at RFSL,

Dharamshala and report to this effect has been proved on

record as Ext. PX. A perusal of this report would show that no

blood or semen was detected in the vaginal slide and vaginal

swab of the victim. The blood was also not detected in the

pregnancy kit. The MLC does not show that the victim was

subjected to sexual assault.

32. It is true that injury is not a sine qua non whether

rape has been committed but this question has to be decided

on the factual matrix of each case, where allegation of rape by

many persons but no injury is noticed, certainly is an

important factor and if the victim version is credible, then no

corroboration is necessary, but if the victim version is not

credible, then there would be need for corroboration.

33. Having gone through the medical report, the same

also does not corroborate in any manner the version put-forth

by the victim.

34. At this stage, one would now have to refer to the

version put-forth by the victim regarding the uploading of the

obscene photographs. PW 25 HC Rajesh Kumar stated that he

.

received the case property and SFSL report Ext. PX. The report

shows that neither any obscene video nor any obscene

photographs of the persons having face similar to the persons

shown in photographs marked as C1 to C4 i.e. the

respondents herein could be found in the data extracted from

the memory card. Neither obscene video nor obscene

photographs were found in the data extracted form the Sim

card mark S1 to S6. It is also mentioned that it could not be

possible to extract data from the mobile phone mark as Ext.2

to Ext.6 due to absence of data basis. Therefore, this report

also does not show that respondents were present there at the

time of occurrence or had uploaded the photographs of the

victim, as is alleged by her.

35. Adverting now to the most important question

regarding lodging of the FIR belatedly, it is urged on behalf of

the respondents that FIR in the present case has been lodged

at a very belated stage i.e. 05.05.2016 i.e. after eight months

of the alleged incident, which took place in September, 2015.

36. In our considered view, the delay has to be

considered in the back ground of the facts and circumstances

of each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence. It is

well settled that the delay in registering FIR cannot by itself be

a ground to doubt the case of the prosecution.

.

37. In cases of delay, the Courts are required to

examine the evidence with a close scrutiny and in doing so;

the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more

carefully. If Court finds that there is no indication of fabrication

or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate

innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the

FIR, the case of the prosecution cannot be dismissed merely

on that ground. The disinclination to inform the family or

report the matter to the police might be due to apprehension

and attitude of the society towards the victim. Therefore, the

delay in lodging the complaint in such cases does not

necessarily indicate that her version is false.

38. In the instant case, the victim is alleged to have

been sexually assaulted in September, 2015 and lodged the

complaint only in May, 2016 that too on the pretext that when

she came to know that her obscene video/photographs were

being uploaded on the Whatsapp, which allegations ultimately

have been found to be false.

39. In such circumstances, inordinate and unexplained

delay in registering the FIR casts cloud of suspicion regarding

the credibility of the prosecution story when read with the

testimony of the victim, medical evidence and all other

evidence led by the prosecution. The inordinate delay in

.

registration of FIR and the time and opportunities which the

victim had, to report the matter to the police or any other

person by raising an alarm when she was forced to undergo

the trauma of rape is unexplainable.

40. It is here that the requirement of the testimony of

the victim being credit worthy to be termed as sterling witness

whose version can be accepted without corroboration steps in.

It is here that the version of the victim 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.

41. In this background, it shall be fruitful to refer to the

following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai

Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC

21:-

15. Keeping the above basic features of the offence alleged against the appellants in mind, when we make reference to the evidence of the so called 'sterling witness' of the prosecution, namely, the prosecutrix,

.

according to her version in the chief examination when

the persons who knocked at the door, were enquired they claimed that they were from the crime branch

which was not mentioned in the FIR. She further deposed that they made a statement that they had come there to commit theft and that they snatched the chain which she was wearing and also the watch from Jitender (PW-11).

While in the complaint, the accused alleged to have stealthily taken the gold chain and wrist watch which were lying near the T.V. It was further alleged that the

appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2486 of 2009 was

having a knife in his hand which statement was not found in the complaint. After referring to the alleged forcible intercourse by both the appellants she stated that she cleaned herself with the red colour socks which

was taken into possession under Exhibit PW-4/B in the hospital, whereas, Exhibit PW- 4/B states that the recovery was at the place of occurrence. The police

stated to have apprehended the appellants at the

instance of Jitender (PW-11) who knew the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2486 of 2009 even prior to the incident, that Jitender (PW-11) also revealed the name of

the said accused to her and that, therefore, she was able to name him in her complaint. When the seized watch was shown to her in the Court, the brand name of which was OMEX, she stated that the said watch was not worn by her nephew Jitender (PW-11) as it was stated to be 'TITAN' and the chain was a gold chain having no pendant. She made it clear that that was not the chain which she was wearing and that it did not belong to her and that the watch found in the same parcel which was a

women's watch was not the one which was worn by Jitender (PW-11).

.

r to

15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a

.

position to accept it for its face value without any

hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what

would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the

witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There

should not be any prevarication in the version of such a

witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the

occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material

such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the

manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other

witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any

corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral,

.

documentary and material objects should match the said

version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to

sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.

42. The credit worthiness of the testimony of the victim

has already been discussed in the earlier part of the

judgment. The victim when put to test as laid down in Rai

Sandeep Deepu case (supra), fails the test of being sterling

witness of a high quality and calibre whose version should

therefore be unassailable and such quality should be in a

position to accept it on face value without any hesitation.

43. Not only is the case set up by prosecution suspect

but even the contradiction, improvement and embellishments

are so significant, which cannot be ignored. Moreso, the

statement of the victim neither stood corroborated from

medical evidence nor from any other material on record and

even the story regarding uploading of photographs belies her

claim.

44. 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.

45. Here it shall be apt to refer to the judgment of the

.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhu vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh (2007) 12 SCC 57, wherein it was observed as

under:-

"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."

46. In Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15

SCC 133, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that testimony

of the victim of a rape cannot be presumed to be a gospel

truth and observed that false allegations of rape can cause

equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well,

such sentiments have been recorded in para 11 of the

judgment, which reads as under:-

"11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further,

be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there

.

is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the

statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."

47. In Abbas Ahmed Choudhary Vs. State of

Assam : (2010) 12 SCC 115, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that:

"We are conscious of the fact that in a matter 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."

48. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law,

the testimony of victim has to be consistent and natural in line

with the case of the prosecution and free from infirmities

which inspire confidence in the Court. It cannot be presumed

that the statement of the victim is always true or without any

embellishment.

49. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, we

find that the testimony of the victim is not natural and

consistent with the case of the prosecution as her version has

no correlation and does not find corroboration with other

material being medical, scientific and expert evidence.

50. Having considered the entire case of the

.

prosecution thoroughly and in its right perspective, we are of

the firm view that if the evidence of the victim is read and

considered in totality of the circumstances along with the

other evidence on record on the basis of which the offence is

alleged to have been committed, then her deposition does not

inspire confidence and

was otherwise

corroborated with other evidence on record. Moreover, the

view taken by the learned trial Court is reasonable and required to be

plausible where the evidence has been considered in its right

perspective and there is palpably no misreading of the

evidence.

51. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are

satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court

committed no error in acquitting the accused/respondents.

52. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also

pending applications, if any.

                                                  (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                          Judge


                                                   (Ranjan Sharma)
    01.09.2023                                           Judge
          (sanjeev)