# Vinod v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1095 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-20 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-v-state-of-u-p-43733 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 363, 366, 376 - Consent - Age of Consent - Applicability of Amendment Occurrence dated April 2012 - At the relevant time, age of consent under S. 376 IPC was 16 years - Amendment raising age of consent to 18 years came into force on 03-02-2013 - Radiological age of prosecutrix found between 17-18 years with permissible variation - Benefit of variation to be given to accused - Held, prosecutrix must have been above 16 years on the date of occurrence, therefore consent relevant. Evidence Act, 1872 - Appreciation of Evidence - FIR - Contradictions FIR contained allegations that prosecutrix was taken by two named girls and handed over to accused - PW1, author of FIR, contradicted FIR on material particulars - FIR contained no date or time of occurrence - FIR not corroborated by PW1 - Held, foundation of prosecution case doubtful. Evidence - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Sterling Witness Standard Testimony of prosecutrix contained material improvements regarding manner of occurrence, involvement of others, and circumstances of movement - Conduct inconsistent with allegations - Did not raise alarm while travelling by public transport - Contradictions between examination-in-chief and cross-examination - Held, testimony not of sterling quality as required for conviction on sole testimony. Medical Jurisprudence - Evidence of Sexual Assault Medical evidence revealed no injury on body or private parts - Hymen found old torn and healed - Prosecutrix found accustomed to sexual intercourse - Radiological age between 17-18 years - Held, medical evidence not consistent with prosecution version of forcible rape. Criminal Procedure - Appreciation of Evidence - Perversity Trial court convicted accused primarily on basis of school records showing minority - Radiological evidence, contradictions in prosecution case, conduct of prosecutrix and relevant legal position regarding age of consent ignored - Held, findings perverse and against evidence on record-Conviction and sentence set aside - Accused acquitted - Having undergone more than four years' incarceration, directed to be released forthwith. 1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES IN RESULT - Appeal allowed. List of Cases cited: 1.Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 ## Text 5 All. Vinod Vs State Of U.P. 1095 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 875 Of 2014 Vinod ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sushil Pandey Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 363, 366, 376 - Consent - Age of Consent - Applicability of Amendment Occurrence dated April 2012 - At the relevant time, age of consent under S. 376 IPC was 16 years - Amendment raising age of consent to 18 years came into force on 03-02-2013 - Radiological age of prosecutrix found between 17-18 years with permissible variation - Benefit of variation to be given to accused - Held, prosecutrix must have been above 16 years on the date of occurrence, therefore consent relevant. Evidence Act, 1872 - Appreciation of Evidence - FIR - Contradictions FIR contained allegations that prosecutrix was taken by two named girls and handed over to accused - PW1, author of FIR, contradicted FIR on material particulars - FIR contained no date or time of occurrence - FIR not corroborated by PW1 - Held, foundation of prosecution case doubtful. Evidence - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Sterling Witness Standard Testimony of prosecutrix contained material improvements regarding manner of occurrence, involvement of others, and circumstances of movement - Conduct inconsistent with allegations - Did not raise alarm while travelling by public transport - Contradictions between examination-in-chief and cross-examination - Held, testimony not of sterling quality as required for conviction on sole testimony. Medical Jurisprudence - Evidence of Sexual Assault Medical evidence revealed no injury on body or private parts - Hymen found old torn and healed - Prosecutrix found accustomed to sexual intercourse - Radiological age between 17-18 years - Held, medical evidence not consistent with prosecution version of forcible rape. Criminal Procedure - Appreciation of Evidence - Perversity Trial court convicted accused primarily on basis of school records showing minority - Radiological evidence, contradictions in prosecution case, conduct of prosecutrix and relevant legal position regarding age of consent ignored - Held, findings perverse and against evidence on record-Conviction and sentence set aside - Accused acquitted - Having undergone more than four years' incarceration, directed to be released forthwith. 1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES IN RESULT - Appeal allowed. List of Cases cited: 1.Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 2. Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 17.7.2013 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 323 of 2012 ( State of U.P. Versus Vinod) arising out of Case Crime No. 465 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C.,Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit whereby the accused was found guilty under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to 3 years R.I. and Rs. 500/- fine under Section 363 I.P.C., 4 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 366 I.P.C. and 7 years R.I. And fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details the prosecution story as per the prosecution version is that the complainant Basant Lal lodged an F.I.R. (Ext. Ka. 1) with the allegation that his 14 years old daughter Neelam, a student of class IX had gone to school alongwith her friends Pinki and Baby belonging to the same village on 21.4.2012 During interval Pinky and Baby took away his daughter outside the school to Dugdhdhari temple near Gunghchihai on the pretext of offering 'Prasad" but they handed over his daughter to Vinod Singh (appellant) who took her away forcibly in a magic car leaving Baby and Pinki at the temple. 3. On the basis of F.I.R., chick report (Ex. Ka. 9) was scribed by P.W. 7 Con. Sudhindra Kumar Singh. Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Rakesh Singh (P.W. 5). He copied the F.I.R. in the C.D., recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses, prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka. 4). The investigation ended into a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 5) against the appellant. 4. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Anjali Singh (P.W. 6). As per the internal examination the hymen was found old torned and healed. No external or internal injury was found on her private parts. Slides were prepared from the smear of the vagina and sent for pathological examination. No dead or alive spearmotozua was found in vaginal report. X-pray was advise for determination of her age. 5. Dr. Udaiveer Singh, P.W. 4 conducted the x-ray examination on 10.5.2012. The radiological age of the girl was found between 17 years and 18 years. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses in all. P.W. 1 Basant Lal is the father of the prosecutrix and first informant. P.W. 2 Neelam is the prosecutrix. P.W. 3 Smt. Mayadevi is mother of the victim. P.W. 4, Dr. Udaiveer Singh, Senior Consultant, District Hospital, Pilibhit is the radiologist. P.W. 5 S.I. Rakesh Singh is the 5 All. Vinod Vs State Of U.P. 1097 Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 Dr. Anjali Singh is the lady doctor who has medically examined the prosecutrix and P.W. 7 is Con. Sudhindra Kumar Singh who has prepared the check F.I.R. P.W. 8 Ravi Kant Shukla is the Incharge Principal, Higher Primary Girls School, Ghunghchihai, P.W. Pooranpur, who has proved the school leaving certificate mentioning the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 15.8.1998. 7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he claimed his false implication due to the reason that the prosecutrix and her parents wanted to perform marriage of prosecutrix with him but as he was not ready he was falsely implicated in this case by them. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and carefully gone through the entire evidence available on the lower court's record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the court below without considering the material contradictions occurring in the statements of the prosecution witnesses has blindly relied on them. It is next contended that no sign of rape or injury has been found on the body of the prosecutrix and she has not tried to call any person for her help or to raise any alarm despite the fact that while going from one place to another and traveling by the public transport (bus), she had sufficient opportunity to do so, but the learned trial court, without taking into consideration all these facts has held the appellant guilty and has convicted and sentenced him. It has lastly been submitted that the appellant has already spent more than four years in jail without any fault on his part and thus the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside by this court. 10. Per contra learned AGA has opposed the appeal by contending that the victim as per her school leaving certificate is a minor girl, hence even assuming that she was a consenting party, it will not make any difference. Therefore, the accused-appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned lower court. 11. Considered the submissions. 12. A careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record shows that the FIR, which is the foundation stone of every criminal case, is wholly doubtful in this case. The author of the FIR (Exhibit Ka-1) Basant Lal is the father of prosecutrix, who has proved the FIR (Ext. Ka-1) to be written in his own handwriting. In the FIR it has been clearly mentioned by him that his daughter Neelam was taken away by Pinki daughter of Sri Shri Niwas and Baby daughter of Sumer. Both of them took her to the school. During interval they took her to Dugdhadhari temple and handed her over to the appellant Vinod Singh, who enticed her away. But the first informant, when examined as PW1, has stated that in the FIR he had never mentioned any such fact that his daughter had gone to the temple with Pinki and Baby. He has further stated that he had even never informed this fact to the I.O. 1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 13. In this regard the following extracts from the statement of PW1/ first informant/father of the victim are relevant: उसके बाद तलाशते रहे लड़की िहीं डमली तब पुडलस र्ैकी घुघर्ाई में तहरीर अपिे हाथ से उसी डदि डलिकर दी थी। साक्षी तहरीर देिकर कहा डक यह वही तहरीर है जो मैंिे र्ैकी की इस पर मेरे हस्ताक्षर हैं इसपर प्रदशग क-1 िाला गया। मेरी ररपोर्ग में यह गलत डलिा है डक डपंकी पुत्री श्री डिवास तथा बेबी पुत्री सुमेर घर से बुलाकर स्कूल पढ़िे के डलए ले गयी थी। तथा स्कूल में इन्टरवेल के समय डपंकी पुत्री श्रीडिवास व बेबी पुत्री सुमेर स्कूल से बाहर ले गयी और छात्राओं िे स्कूल के बाहर ले जाकर दुग्धिारी देवी स्थल जो गाॅ व के बाहर उिर डदशा में है। वहाॅ पर ले जाकर गाॅ व के डविोद डसंह एस0/ओ0 सन्डू डसंह के हाथ में िीलम को पकिा डदया और यह उपरोक्त कथि मैिे दरोगा जी को अपिे ब्यािों में िही डदया। यह बातें ररपोर्ग में इसडलए डलि गई डक मेरा डदमाग काम िहीं कर रहा था। 14. Relevant portion of the FIR, which is in total contradiction of the above statement of the PW1, is as under:- ''प्राथी की पुत्री की िीलम उम्र 14 वषग जो डक गाॅ व के एक प्राईवेर् गुरूिािक उ0मा0 में कक्षा 9 की छात्रा है। उसे गाॅ व डपंकी पुत्री श्री डिवास तथा बेबी पुत्री सुमेर घर से बुलाकर स्कूल पढ़िे के डलए ले गयी थी तथा स्कूल में इण्टरवल के समय डपंकी पुत्री श्री डिवास तथा बेबी पुत्री सुमेर को स्कूल से बाहर ले गयी और छात्राओं िे स्कूल के बाहर ले जाकर दुग्धा िारी िामक देवी स्थल जो डक गाॅ व के बाहर उिर डदशा में खस्थडत में है। वहाॅ पर ले जाकर गाॅ व के डविोद डसंह पुत्र झंिू डसंह हाथ में िीलम को पकड़ा डदया।'' 15. In the FIR it has not been mentioned that on whose information the informant got the knowledge that his daughter left the school in the interval and went outside to offer Prasad in the temple. The date and the time when the occurrence had taken place is also not mentioned in the FIR. In the column of date and time of occurrence in the check FIR the words "vne rgjhj" have been written. 16. It is true that the FIR is not an encyclopedia and minute details are not required to be mentioned in the FIR but at least the relevant facts such as date and time of the occurrence must find place in it. 17. The statement of PW1/first informant shows that he does not even know the age of his daughter. Though he has mentioned her age as 14 years in the FIR but his statement regarding age of his daughter clearly shows that he has no idea about the age of his daughter. मेरी बेर्ी कक्षा िौ तक पढी है। जन्म डतडथ मुझे अपिे बेर्ी की िहीं मालूम माकगशीर् देििे पता लगा डक मेरी लड़की की उम्र 14 वषग थी। 18. PW1 has stated that he was informed about the abduction of his daughter by some labourers working in the fields but when cross-examined, he could not tell whether those labourers were the residents of his village or were outsiders. He does not know the name of any of the 5 All. Vinod Vs State Of U.P. 1099 labourer. He has admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with any of them. If that was the situation then how could those alleged eyewitnesses/ labourers had identified the informant's daughter and also the appellant when he was allegedly taking her away with him. In this respect the following extracts from the statement of PW1 are worth mentioning: जब छुट्टी हो गई लड़की घर वापस िही पहॅ र्ी तो मैिे उसे तलाशा तो गाॅ व के समीप दुग्धा िारी मखन्दर के पास अन्य व्यखक्त िेत में मजदूरी का कायग कर रहे थे तो उन्होंिे बताया डक तुम्हारी लड़की को डविोद डसंह मैडजक में बैठाकर ले गये। डद0 21-4-12 को डदि के तीि बजे मुझे लोगों िे यह बात बताई थी मुझे उि लोगों का िाम िही मालूम। डजन्होंिे िाम बताया था मुझे यह भी िहीं मालूम डक वे लोग कहाॅ के थे। वे सब र्ार लोग थे। हमिे उि बतािे वालों के बारे में उिके िाम पते डिवास मैंिे िहीं पूछा क्ोंडक मैं हड़बड़ाहर् में था। 19. Moreover, there appear material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses making the entire prosecution story doubtful and unworthy of credence. For example PW1 has stated that when his daughter had left for school on the day of occurrence she was wearing a Salwar Suit and when she was recovered she was wearing the same Salwar suit, which had become very dirty and spoiled due to the continuous wearing for about one month. But on the contrary PW3, who is mother of the victim, has stated that when her daughter had returned she was wearing a Sari and she had informed that the Sari was given to her by Vinod. The relevant portion of the statement of PW3 is quoted as under: घर से मेरी लड़की पीला सूर् पहि कर गयी थी। जब घर वापस आयी थी तब साड़ी पहि कर आयी थी। साड़ी छींर्दार थी। 20. The prosecutrix PW2 has also stated a thoroughly unbelievable story about her clothes by stating that she was wearing the same dress for 3-4 days. The statement of the prosecutrix is self contradictory too. In her examination in chief she has stated that the appellant met her near Dugdhdhari temple and enticed her away to some unknown place but during her cross examination she has given a total contradictory statement and has stated that Vinod met her when she was returning from the temple. 3-4 persons were with him. All of them caught hold her from behind and put a scarf (अंगोछाद्ध) on her face. They blind folded her eyes and took her to an unknown room. 21. Thus the prosecutrix has made substantial improvements not only with regard to the manner of occurrence but also with regard to the involvement of 4-5 more persons in the occurrence. 22. The statement of the prosecutrix, who is the most important witness in this case does not inspire confidence also due to the following reasons: 23. She has stated that a man and a woman were also residing in the house where the appellant had kept her but she did not make any complaint to them. She has admitted that the accused used to go outside the house for taking food etc but during that period also, she never tried to make any complaint to anybody. She has admitted that she never raised any alarm. She has 1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES stated that 4-5 accused took her to some other city by some other car and kept her in a house in that city where some relatives of the accused appellant were also residing and she stayed there for eight days. But her statement appears to be unnatural that during those eight days she never tried to converse with any of the inmates of that house. She has stated that she was questioned by the inmates of the house about the place from where she had come but she did not inform anything to them. The prosecutrix has stated that the accused used to call "Didi" to one lady, who was residing in that house and the inmates used to cook food themselves. Hence her statement that during her stay for eight days in that house, she never changed her clothes does not inspire confidence. The occurrence is of summer season and it is unbelievable that a person would live without bathing and without even changing clothes for continuous eight days in summer more so when there was no such restriction on her. 24. The following statement deposed by her during examination-in-chief is also worthy to be seen, which is in total contradiction with what she has deposed during her cross-examination. घर्िा से 18 वें डदि डविोद मुझे आसाम र्ैराहा पीलीभीत पर लाया था। वहाॅ से मैं बर् करके र्ैराहे पर आयी थी। र्ैराहे पर मुझे पुडलस के पास मेरे डपता जी डमले थे। मैं पुडलस व डपता जी के साथ थािा पूरिपुर गयी थी। 25. Whereas during her cross examination she has stated as follows: डदि डिकले हम लोग बस पर बैठ गये थे। बस में भी मैंिे डकसी से डजक्र िहीं डकया था। मैं पीलीभीत गयारह बजे आ गयी थी बस जहाॅ रूकी थी वही से पुडलस वालों िे हम दोिों को पकड़ डलया था। आस पास र्ैराहे पर पुडलस िे हमें पकड़ा था। यह सही है डक मुझे व डविोद को डदि के ग्यारह बजे आसाम र्ैराहे पर पकड़ डलया था। और पकड़कर सीिे हम दोिों को थािे ले आये थे। थािे में मेरे डपता जी व माता जी को बुलाया था। 26. The statement of the prosecutrix also shows that she has travelled by public transport (bus) but admittedly she has not raised any alarm. Her statement in this regard is as follows: दूसरे मकाि में से पीलीभीत बस से आयी थी। जहाॅ बहत सी बसंॅे िड़ी थी वहाॅ से मुखिम मुझे बैठाकर साथ लाया था। बस स्टैण्ड पर मैिे डकसी भी व्यखक्त से यह िहीं बताया डक मुखिम डविोद मुझे भगाकर लाया है। 27. It is worthy to be mentioned that the statement of PW3, mother of the prosecutrix, is entirely different. She has stated as follows: जब मेरी लड़की िीलम 12 डदि के बाद घर पर अकेली आयी थी तो मैं व मेरे पडत लड़की को लेकर थािा पूरिपुर गये थे। 28. The I.O., who has recovered the prosecutrix, has stated that she was waiting for some conveyance at Bus station on 9.5.2012 at about 6.00 P.M. when he took her in custody. 29. The statement of PW3 (mother of the prosecutrix) clearly shows that the prosecutrix had love affair with the appellant. She has stated that after sometime she got the knowledge about their sweet relations. She has also stated that she and her husband both had beaten their daughter 5 All. Vinod Vs State Of U.P. 1101 after she returned. Thus the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix clearly suggests that the prosecutrix had willingly eloped with the accused. She traveled with him from one place to other by public transport (bus) and when they were waiting for some bus at the bus stop, both of them were arrested by the police. The girl was handed over to her parents, who naturally were annoyed by her conduct and therefor, she was beaten by her parents. 30. The statement of the doctor, who had examined her is also relevant. The doctor, PW6, has stated that no injury was seen either on her body or private part. Her hymen was found old torn and healed and she was found to be used to sexual intercourse. The doctor has also stated that her physical traits were found well developed and her radio logical age was found to be between 17-18 years with a variation of six months on either side. 31. The trial court has held the appellant guilty mainly on the ground that the girl according to her transfer certificate was a minor at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, her consent had no relevance. The evidence available on record shows that the prosecutrix was a student of Class IX. Thus, there is no certificate equivalent to matriculation as is required by Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for ascertaining her age. The trial court ascertained her age on the basis of a transfer certificate and marks sheet of Junior High School of the victim in which her date of birth is mentioned as 15.8.1998. It is also to be noted that the occurrence is of April 2012 i.e. before amendment of Section 376 Cr.P.C. when the age of consent for the purpose of this section was 16 years. The amendment in section 375 I.P.C. by which the age of consent has been increased from 16 to 18 years has come into effect from 3.2.2013. The radio logical age of the prosecutrix was found to be between 17-18 years. It is well settled that there may be a variation of six months to one year on either side. It is also well settled law that the benefit of this variation would go to the accused. Thus, clearly the prosecutrix must have been more than sixteen years of age at the time of occurrence, which was the age of consent at the time when the occurrence had taken place. 32. The evidence as discussed in detail earlier clearly indicates that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The case diary shows that even her brother Jitendra Kumar, who has not been examined by the prosecution, has admitted that she had love affair with accused Vinod. Had it not been so then there was no reason for the parents to beat their daughter when she returned to them after so many days. 33. One more fact, which makes the prosecution story unworthy of credence is that two girls i.e. Pinki and Baby whose names have been mentioned in the FIR and against whom there is a clear allegation in the FIR that they took the prosecutrix from school and handed her over to the accused, were neither charge-sheeted nor were summoned as an accused with the aid of section 319 Cr.P.C. If the two girls were innocent and for that reason they were exonerated by the police and even by the informant, then both girls, who were the best witness in this case being the eyewitnesses, should have been examined as prosecution 1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES witnesses but the prosecution for the reasons best known to it, has withheld them, which fact also makes the prosecution case suspicious. 34. There is no doubt that the cases of rape should be dealt by the courts with an iron hand and the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix but the condition is that the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. So far as the present case is concerned, in this case the evidence of prosecutrix shows several lacunae and does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant-accused guilty of rape. In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State Haryana, (2011)7 SCC 130 the Apex court under almost same facts has set aside the conviction and has acquitted the accused. Explaining/ elaborating the meaning of 'sterling witness', Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 has observed as under: "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 prosecution qua the accused. There should be not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness." 35. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that it was not proper for the learned trial court to convict the appellant on the basis of such statements of the prosecution witnesses, which are full of contradictions, omissions, embellishments and improvements. However, the trial court convicted the appellant, therefore, the judgment of the trial court being perverse and against the evidence on record is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 36. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 13.2.2014 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. 37. It is unfortunate that the appellant from the first date of his arrest is languishing in jail because his bail application was rejected by the trial court and this court also after taking into account that the appeal is ripe for final hearing, did not consider his bail. The appellant, who has already spent more than four years in jail shall be released forthwith. 38. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, for immediate compliance. --------- 5 All. Ram Briksh Vs State Of U.P. 1103 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J. THE HON'BLE KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 1319 Of 1981 & Government Appeal No.- 1916 Of 1981 Ram Briksh ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: P.P. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondent: A.G.A Criminal trial - Conviction - Sole eyewitness - Credibility - Effect of material contradictions and non-examination of independent witnesses. Where the prosecution case rests mainly on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness whose presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful and whose statements suffer from material contradictions touching the genesis of the occurrence, manner of assault and his conduct before and after the incident, such evidence cannot be held to be wholly reliable. Non-examination of natural and independent witnesses named in the first information report, coupled with unexplained delay and suspicious circumstances attending the lodging of the FIR, creates serious doubt about the prosecution version. Criminal law - Ocular evidence and medical evidence - Inconsistency - Absence of motive and corroboration. When the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries, absence of blackening or charring and the probable time of death does not lend support to the prosecution story of close-range firing in broad daylight, the ocular evidence loses its evidentiary value. In a case resting on such infirm evidence, absence of proof of motive, non-recovery of the alleged weapon of offence and lack of forensic corroboration further weaken the prosecution case and entitle the accused to benefit of doubt. Criminal appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference. In an appeal against acquittal, if the view taken by the trial court is a possible and reasonable view based on proper appreciation of evidence, the appellate court should not interfere merely because another view is possible. Unless the findings recorded by the trial court are shown to be perverse, manifestly illegal or based on misreading of evidence, the judgment of acquittal does not call for interference.