S.P. GARG, J.

1. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by a judgment dated 09.07.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.61/13 arising out of FIR No.390/12 PS Dabri by which the appellant – Sant Ram was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/109 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (In short ‘ITP Act’), the instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 17.07.2014, the appellant was sentenced to undergo various prison terms with fine.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that a month prior to 03.10.2012, Madan Lal Rana and Raman Kumar (since acquitted) committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (changed name) at their office at Kakrola, New Delhi and at House No.RZ-120, C-2, Mahavir Enclave Part-I, New Delhi. The appellant and one Jyoti (facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board) were implicated for abetment of commission of rape by co-accused Madan Lal Rana, Raman Kumar and some unknown individuals upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ aged around 19 years; using premises No. RZ-120, C-2, Mahavir Enclave Part-I, as ‘brothel’ for prostitution; knowingly living on the earnings of the prosecutrix and procuring her for prostitution and pushing her into prostitution.

3. On 03.10.2012 after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-6/A) the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. ‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The appellant and his associate were arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant, Madan Lal Rana and Raman Kumar for committing various offences. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and relied upon various documents. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He examined DW-1 (Vijay Kumar) in defence. After evaluating the evidence and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted Madan Lal Rana and Raman Kumar of the charges. It is relevant to note that State did not challenge their acquittal. It is unclear as to what is the outcome of the proceedings pending against Jyoti before Juvenile Justice Board.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that the prosecutrix ‘X’ was major on the day of occurrence. In her complaint, she claimed herself to be of 19 years old. The Investigating Agency, however, did not collect any cogent document to establish her exact date of birth. Ossification report (Ex.PW-9/A) prepared by the Board set up in DDU Hospital of which PW-9 (Dr.Uma K.) was one of the members opined X’s age in between 20 – 25 years.

5. Appellant’s conviction is primarily based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix ‘X’. Settled legal position is that conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it is reliable and is of sterling quality.

6. In the instant case, various infirmities, inconsistencies and discrepancies have emerged in the statement of the prosecutrix making it unsafe to base conviction upon her sole testimony without independent corroboration. Impugned judgment records that the prosecutrix had made certain improvements in her deposition before the Court. The Trial Court was, however, of the view that these did not relate to or affect the core spectrum of the prosecution case. It is pertinent to note that during investigation, the prosecutrix had implicated Madan Lal Rana and Raman Kumar to be the individuals who had committed gang rape upon her against her wishes. She had identified both of them to be the perpetrators of the crime and had identified Raman Kumar in Test Identification Proceedings conducted at Tihar Jail. Certain recoveries were also effected pursuant to their disclosure statements in the presence of