Criminal Trial - Slightest doubt regarding involvement - Court should not go on convicting accused [CASE LAW]

Ranbir Penal Code - Sections 363/376 - the story of rape projected by victim does not inspire confidence of court - there is no strict proof that accused have committed the criminal act as alleged by prosecution.

Criminal Trial - The courts while appreciating the evidence in criminal cases have to see the degree of proof is maxim than that of civil case. If there comes slightest doubt regarding the involvement of accused then court should not go on convicting the accused. Court can only find the guilt of a person only if it is convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt of his or her guilt. There should be strict proofs that accused committed the offence. 

In criminal trial, the burden always lies on prosecution to establish the case against the accused and the accused persons are presumed to be innocent of the offence charged till the contrary is established. The presumption of innocence always applies to accused. The prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, which is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. In determining the guilt of person charged with crime, onus of proving everything essential for the establishment of the charge against the accused persons lies on the prosecution. The evidence must be such as to exclude moral certainty, every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. In the matter of doubt, it is safer to acquit the accused, because it is better that several guilty person should escape than that one innocent person suffer. If there be any gap or lacuna in the prosecution evidence, the accused and not the prosecution, would be entitled to get the benefit of doubt. It is the duty of the prosecution to ensure all diligence and carefulness required to see that all are brought on record and that prosecution does not fail to such neglect. The weakness in defence established by the accused persons is no help to prosecution, because the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt. Mere creation of suspicion is not enough. There is inevitably long distance to travel between „may be true‟ and „must be true‟. The distance to travel must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. More the heinous offence, strict proofs are required.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge

CRAA No.13/2005 & IA No.1/2017

Date of order:16.11.2018

State of J&K Vs. Ravi Kumar

Appearing counsel: For appellant(s) : Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA; For respondent(s) : Mr. C. B. Slathia, Advocate

1. The State has preferred this Criminal Acquittal Appeal against judgment dated 31.08.2004 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu in case FIR No.160/1996, registered at Police Station, Kahna Chak, under Sections 363/376 RPC, whereby respondent herein stands acquitted of the charges.

2. The case of the prosecution is based on occurrence dated 14.12.1996 when complainant, namely, Garu Ram lodged a verbal report with the Police Post Gharota stating therein that on 13.12.1996 at evening he came back from his duty when his wife informed him that his daughter had not come back to home while she left for school at 8.45 in the morning. She was studying in 8th class at Government Middle School Seeri Panditan and her age is 15/16 years. He searched his daughter at the houses of his relations but she could not be traced. He suspected that Ravi Kumar accused had kidnapped his minor daughter. On this, report No.10 dated 14.12.1996 was entered at Police Station Gharota and a copy of the same was sent to Police Station Kahna Chak for registration of the case under Section 363 RPC. FIR No.160/1996 was registered with the Police Station, Kahna Chak and after investigation a challan under Section 363/376 RPC was presented in the court below.

3. After perusing the documents produced by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the court below came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 363/376 RPC was made out against the accused Ravi Kumar and accordingly charge was framed against the accused by the court below on 25.02.1997. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined the witnesses, namely, Neel Kumar PW-1, Garu Ram PW-2, Rano Devi PW-3, Devi Dayal PW-4, Victim (name of the victim is not disclosed) PW-5 and Gurdev Singh ASI PW-6. Witness Pappu was given up as he has been turned hostile by the prosecution, whereas Dr. Romesh Chander was also given up as he was not necessary witness in the case. The accused has not led any evidence in defence. Court below after trial has acquitted the accused.

4. Before proceeding ahead the brief resume of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses is as under:

Neel Kumar PW-1 has stated that he knows the accused and the victim is his niece (brother‟s daughter). On 13.12.1996 victim was missing and they started her search till 14.12.1996 and she could not be traced. During her search they came to know that accused Ravi Kumar had kidnapped the victim for marrying her. At that time the victim was studying in 6th class. He and his brother Garu Ram lodged the report with the Police Station Kahna Chak in respect of the kidnapping of victim by accused Ravi Kumar for marrying. The report was lodged by his brother verbally but he was accompanying his brother. He went along with police to the house of the accused. On enquiry by police, father of the accused told that the accused along with victim was sleeping in the adjoining room. Police went inside the room and found both the accused and victim sleeping there. Thereafter police called him and his brother inside the room for identification and they identified the accused and the victim. When police called them inside the room the Shalwar of victim was found near the pillow. He came out and police prepared the recovery memo and obtained his signatures. Police also seized Shalwar vide seizure memo EXPW-NK/1 and he identified his signatures on it. The victim was handed over on sapurdnama to her father vide sapurdnama EXPW-NK/2.

In cross examination he has stated that they came to know from the mother of accused Ravi that the accused had kidnapped the victim. They came to know this fact on 13th at 8.00 in the evening. The mother of accused met them outside his house at Raipur and gave this information. He knew the mother of accused earlier. His brother Naseebu Ram and his sister are married in that village. Mother of accused gave this information to him while he was alone on 14th at 7.30 pm and the earlier statement in this respect is not correct. Thereafter he went to his house and informed his brother about it. Numberdar, Faiju Ram also accompanied them to the Police Station. Police recovered the victim on 15th at night. Report was lodged by his brother on 14th at 11.30 in the day. The victim was married one year before.

Garu Ram PW-2 has stated that the victim is his daughter and at the time of occurrence her age was 15/16 years. On 13.12.1996 he came back at evening to his house after attending his duty at Nagrota and his wife told that his daughter had not reached home. They searched for her for two days. Thereafter on 15.12.1996 at evening they lodged report with the Police Post, Gharota. He put his signatures on Roznamcha dated 14.12.1996 which are correct and copy is marked as EXPW-GR. The contents are also correct. The day on which the report was lodged the same day police raided the house of the accused and got recovered his daughter. Police told that the girl had been recovered from the house of the accused. He was standing outside when police went to recover the girl. Accused and his daughter were brought out by the police. Recovery memo EXPW-NK was prepared by the police and he signed the same. Police also seized the clothes of the victim vide seizure memo EXPW-NK/1 and he signed the same. The victim was kept on his sapurdnama vide memo EXPW-NK/2.

In cross examination he has stated that the report was lodged next day of the occurrence at 5/6 in the evening. His brother Neel Kumar accompanied him at that time. He does not know whether Neel Kumar also signed the report or not but he signed this report. His wife told that Ravi Kumar-accused used to visit the house of his cousin, who is married in their locality and on the day of occurrence the accused had also come there and accused had kidnapped his daughter. In his report with the police he told that he suspected accused in kidnapping his daughter. It is correctly entered in the police report that his daughter was studying in 8th class and whatever he told today that she was studying in 6th class is not correct. He does not remember because the occurrence took place since long. It is wrong that his brother Neel Kumar told him that the accused Ravi Kumar had kidnapped his daughter. Police went to the house of the accused at 7-8 in the evening and he remained at a distance of 25-30 feet away from that house. Recovery memo was prepared by the police at the house of the accused but his signatures were obtained outside and at that time the police told him that the girl had been recovered. The seizure memo of the clothes of his daughter was prepared at police post at night, on the day the girl was recovered. He took the girl to his house during the night and in the morning he handed over her clothes to the police at Police Post and the police prepared the seizure memo next day morning.

Rano Devi PW-3 has stated that the victim is her daughter. At the time of occurrence she was student of 6th class. 2 ½ years before at morning the victim went to school but did not come back to the home at evening. They started search of their daughter at the houses of their relations but she could not be traced. Next day they lodged report with police post that the accused had kidnapped their daughter. Police recovered the girl from the house of the accused. On her enquiry her daughter told that the accused frightened her and forcibly kidnapped her without her consent.

In cross examination she has stated that she was married 20/25 years before and the victim was born one year after marriage. The girl was not recovered in her presence from the house of the accused. The sister of her husband is married with the uncle of the accused in the same village. The victim used to visit the village of the accused to meet her aunt. Victim is married now. Her daughter was studying in 9th class at Seeri Panditan High School.

Devi Dayal Sharma PW-4 has stated that on 02.01.1997 he was posted as Headmaster Government Middle School Seri Panditan Block Bhalwal. Certificate EXPW-DD dated 02.01.1997 was issued by him and the date of birth of the victim as per the school record was 28.04.1981.

In cross examination he has stated that the victim was student of 8th class in their school. She was a student of Primary School Nadwal before taking admission in their school. The date of birth of victim has been recorded on the basis of discharge certificate issued by Primary School, Nadwal.

Victim PW-5 has stated that she does not know the accused. Four years before she was going to Seeri Panditan School where she was studying, when accused was moving ahead of her. She does not know the name of the accused but identifies him from the face. The accused threatened her to kill in case she did not accompany him. Accused compelled her to move along with him. The accused took her to Nagbani and kept her there for the night in the house of one relation. At night accused raped her. Next day accused brought her to Jammu city and she was not having money for bus fare. At 10/11 her uncle met her and police was accompanying him. Police apprehended her and the accused. At the time of occurrence her age was 15 years. Police took them to police post. She was got medically examined at Jammu. She does not know whether Shalwar which she was wearing at the time of occurrence was given to the police or not. After hearing the contents of seizure memo EXPW-NK/1 she stated that shirt and Shalwar were given to Gharota police and she signed the seizure memo.

In cross examination she has stated that she does not know the name of the accused even today. Accused lives near the house of her aunt. Name of her aunt is Guddo and she is wife of Jeet Singh. Jeet Singh and father of the accused are not brothers. House of her aunt is situated at a distance from the house of accused. She has not gone to the house of the accused. They went to Nagbani on bus. There were passengers in the bus. She did not tell any passengers in the bus that the accused had been taking her forcibly. They reached Nagbani at 10/11 in the morning. The relations of the accused were present in the house at Nagbani. Ladies were also present. She told the resident of that house accused had brought her forcibly. There were two rooms in that house. Nobody else stay in the room at night in which they stayed for the night. Next day morning they came to Jammu on bus. When they got down at bus stand her uncle met there along with the police. Police did not make any enquiry from her about the occurrence. The accused was having knife in his hand. When they were travelling in the bus the accused had kept the knife in his pocket. She informed the police and her parents about the rape. Accused was also taken into custody by the police at Bus Stand, Jammu. She also informed the police that accused had threatened her with knife. When accused was arrested by the police at bus stand, Jammu the accused was not having knife at that time. The accused came out of Khud and started moving behind her when she was going to school. Her clothes were not torn. She was not raped by anybody before the occurrence. It was bleeding. Her Shalwar was blood stained. Accused also gave teeth bites on her breast and scratches were sustained by her on the back. She also received other injuries. These injuries were shown to the doctor. She was examined medically same day on which they were apprehended.

S. Gurdev Singh ASI PW-6 has stated that in December, 1996 he was posted at Gharota Police Post. He has conducted the investigation in the case FIR No.160/1996 under Section 363/376 RPC registered with the Police Station Kahna Chak. During investigation he prepared the site plan EXPW-GS. On 05.12.1996 he recovered the victim from the possession of the accused vide recovery memo EXPW-NK. He also prepared the site plan EXPW-GS/1 of the place of recovery of the victim. The victim produced one Shalwar before him which was seized vide seizure memo EXPW-NK/1. The victim was kept on the sapurdnama of her father vide memo NK/2. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. He also obtained the certificate in respect of date of birth of the victim which is on the file. According to his investigation a case under Section 363/376 RPC was proved against the accused. The Shalwar shown to him in the court, is the same which was seized by him.

In cross examination he has stated that the victim went at 9.00 am on 13.12.1996 and the report was lodged with the police on 14.12.1996 at 12.00 noon. Police post is situated 6/7 kilometer away from the house of the complainant. The girl was taken to Nagbani garden and thereafter in the room. There was no bed and bedding in the room. He does not know who owned those garden and room. He does not know whether the girl went along with the accused by foot or on bus. Accused brought the girl on 15th December at his house and stayed there for the night. It has come in his investigation that on the night intervening 14th and 15th the victim and the accused stayed at bus stand, Jammu. He recovered the girl at 9.00 in the morning and at that time the complainant and his brother were also present there. He did not find any mark of injury on the body of victim. It is wrong that the victim herself went and her uncle brought her to the police.

5. The court below after appreciating the evidence acquitted the accused/respondent as court came to the conclusion that prosecution case is full of contradictions; that there is contradiction with regard to place of recovery of victim; there is contradiction with regard to seizure of clothes of victim; that medical evidence has not been produced; further medical certificate shows no mark of injury on genital parts of victim; slide examination shows no presence of spermatozoa.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of the matter.

7. The scope of power of appellate court in case of acquittal has been highlighted by Apex Court in AIR 2014 SC 2200 in case titled ‘Muralidhar alias Gidda & anr. v State of Karnatka’ [Criminal Appeal No.551 with 791 and 1081 of 2011, D/- 9-4-2014], which read as under :-

“10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup[1], highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years.

11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed, "............the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."

12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu[3], Madan Mohan Singh[4], Atley[5] , Aher Raja Khima[6], Balbir Singh[7], M.G. Agarwal[8], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade[11], Lekha Yadav[12], Khem Karan[13], Bishan Singh[14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai[15], K. Gopal Reddy[16], Tota Singh[17], Ram Kumar[18], Madan Lal[19], Sambasivan[20], Bhagwan Singh[21], Harijana Thirupala[22], C. Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sanjay Thakran[25] and Chandrappa[26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: 

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court,

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal,

(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

13. In „Ghurey Lal v State of U.P.‟ (2008) 10 SCC 450, the Court has culled out the principles relating to the appeals from a judgment of acquittal which are in line with what we have observed above.”

8. In criminal trial, the burden always lies on prosecution to establish the case against the accused and the accused persons are presumed to be innocent of the offence charged till the contrary is established. The presumption of innocence always applies to accused. The prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, which is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. In determining the guilt of person charged with crime, onus of proving everything essential for the establishment of the charge against the accused persons lies on the prosecution. The evidence must be such as to exclude moral certainty, every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. In the matter of doubt, it is safer to acquit the accused, because it is better that several guilty person should escape than that one innocent person suffer. If there be any gap or lacuna in the prosecution evidence, the accused and not the prosecution, would be entitled to get the benefit of doubt. It is the duty of the prosecution to ensure all diligence and carefulness required to see that all are brought on record and that prosecution does not fail to such neglect. The weakness in defence established by the accused persons is no help to prosecution, because the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt. Mere creation of suspicion is not enough. There is inevitably long distance to travel between „may be true‟ and „must be true‟. The distance to travel must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. More the heinous offence, strict proofs are required.

9. The fact in issue can be established by direct evidence or by indirect evidence.

10. In case of rape, the evidence of Prosecutrix carries value, other evidence are only of corroborating in nature. Now law is well established that court can base its conviction in rape case, only on sole testimony of Prosecutrix, if her testimony inspires confidence of court. Rape has been defined under section 375 RPC. It says that if any person has sexual intercourse with a woman under seven circumstances, then it can be termed as rape. These are; 1) against the Will of Prosecutrix; 2) without her consent; 3) with her consent when consent has been obtained by putting her or any other person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt; 4) with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married; 5) with her consent when at the time of giving consent she was by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupedfying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that action to which she gives consent; 6) with or without her consent when she is under 18 years; and 7) when she is unable to communicate consent.

11. In term of clause 6 of section 375 RPC, consent if given by a girl below 18 years carries no value and person is liable to be convicted. Further in case of rape, the statement of Prosecutrix is very important since in such cases normally direct evidence is not available. Court has to draw its conclusion from attending circumstances and probability of facts stated by victim. Conduct of Prosecutrix is very important in order to appreciate her evidence on right perspective. There should not be animus against the accused by victim or her relative; there should not be artificiality and unnaturalness in version of victim.

12. In AIR 2012 (SC) 2281 in case titled “Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCET of Delhi), it has been held:-

“23. the court while trying an accused on charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which are not of a substantial character.

However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defense to explain as to how and why in rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused.

24. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defense. However, great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of accused and the prosecution has brought home the guilt against he accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and take support from weakness of case of defense. There must be proper legal evidence and material on record to record the conviction of accused. Conviction can be based on sole testimony of Prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. However, in case the court has reason not to accept version of Prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its totality and story projected by Prosecutrix is found to be improbable the prosecution case is liable to be rejected.”

13. In present case, as rightly held, there is contradiction with regard to recovery of victim; as per victim she was apprehended when she and accused were at bus stand, Jammu. But PWs Neel Kumar uncle of victim, Garu Ram father of victim, Rano Devi mother of victim and S. Gurdev Singh I/O have stated that victim was recovered from the house of accused. Even recovery memo EXPW-NK and site map EXPW-GS/1 would reveal that victim was recovered from house of accused. I/O has also stated that during investigation he came to know that victim and accused stayed at a hotel at bus stand; but I/O has not made any attempt to collect any evidence in this regard. No person from the vicinity from where victim was recovered has been examined from which it can be inferred as to whether she was actually recovered from house of accused or from bus stand. So there is material contradiction, therefore, this finding of the court below is not perverse in nature.

14. There is also contradiction with regard to seizure memo of clothes of victim; PW Neel Kumar has stated that shalwar of victim was lying near pillow and police seized it vide EXPWNK/1 on same day; whereas PW Garo Ram another witness to seizure has stated that seizure memo was prepared at police post, but he took victim to home and handed over salwar on next day to police. Whereas victim has stated that she does not know whether shalwar seized; while reading seizure memo she stated that shawar was given to P/S Gharota and it was blood stained; I/O has stated that victim produced the shalwar. So there is material contradiction. There is also no evidence as to whether seized shalwar was sent for FSL or not. Further victim has stated that her clothes were torn, her shalwar became blood stained. the accused gave teeth bites on her breast and scratches were sustained by her on back; she has also stated that she received injuries on her body, which she shown to doctor. Although medical of victim has not been proved as PW Doctor has been given up by prosecution. However certificate shows that there was no mark of injuries on the body of victim; no injury was found on genital organ of victim as she was menstruating; even slides examination reveal, non presence of spermatozoa. In this way finding of court below in this regard is also not perverse. One more fact is important worth to be taken note that victim has stated that accused compelled her to move along with him. The accused took her to Nagbani and kept her there for the night in the house of one relation. At night accused raped her. Next day accused brought her to Jammu city and she was not having money for bus fare. At 10/11 her uncle met her and police was accompanying him. Police apprehended her and the accused. In cross examination has stated that They went to Nagbani on bus. There were passengers in the bus. She did not tell any passengers in the bus that the accused had been taking her forcibly. They reached Nagbani at 10/11 in the morning. The relations of the accused were present in the house at Nagbani. Ladies were also present. She told the resident of that house accused had brought her forcibly. There were two rooms in that house. Nobody else stayed in the room at night in which they stayed for the night. Next day morning they came to Jammu on bus. When they got down at bus stand her uncle met there along with the police. Police did not make any enquiry from her about the occurrence.

15. If these facts as narrated by victim are considered in right perspective, it is evident that she had sufficient opportunity to take help from passengers in bus while going to Nagbani and then to bus stand by asking them that she has been kidnapped by accused.

16. In AIR 1998 SC 2694 in case titled Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar, it is held as under: “Then coming to the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC, although both the courts below have held after accepting the evidence of prosecutrix being truthful held that the appellant has forcibly committed the rape, we are of the opinion that the said finding is unsustainable. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity not only to run away from the house at Ramgarh but she could have also taken the help of neighbours from the said village. The medical evidence of Dr. Maya shankar Thakur - P.W.2 also indicates that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix including her private part. Her entire conduct clearly shows that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and if this be so, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained. There is one more additional factor which we must mention that it is not the case of the prosecutrix that she was put in physical restraint in the house at Ramgarh, with the result her movements were restricted. This circumstance also goes to negative the case of forcible intercourse with the prosecutrix by the appellant.”

17. In AIR 2012 SC 2281 case titled Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), it has been held as under:

“17. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. (Vide: Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 1 SCC 220)

18. In Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 14 SCC 534, this Court while dealing with the issue held: "The only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed."

19. In Rajoo & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 858, this Court held that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. The court however, further observed: "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 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."

20. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, this Court held has under: "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."

18. In view of above, the story of rape projected by victim does not inspire confidence of court. The courts while appreciating the evidence in criminal cases have to see the degree of proof is maxim than that of civil case. If there comes slightest doubt regarding the involvement of accused then court should not go on convicting the accused. Court can only find the guilt of a person only if it is convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt of his or her guilt. There should be strict proofs that accused committed the offence. In present case, as already discussed hereinabove, there is no strict proof that accused have committed the criminal act as alleged by prosecution.

19. In view of above discussion, the order of court below is correct and this acquittal appeal has no merit; it is dismissed accordingly.