The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of acquittal, and the reliance on the reliability and quality of the prosecutrix's testimony.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State to impugn the judgment dated 04.01.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.172/2011 emanating from FIR No.208/2011 at Police Station Chhawla by which the respondent Sumit Kumar was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as reflected in the charge-sheet was that in the first week of January 2008 at his House No. C-1/1160. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and thereafter on several occasions at his house and on 21.3.2010 at the victim’s house at E-269, Shyam Vihar-I, Najafgarh, New Delhi, the respondent committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (changed name), aged around 31 years. On 06.10.2011, the prosecutrix lodged the written complainant with the police of Police Station Chhawla implicating the respondent for commission of rape upon her on various occasions. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. ‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C statement. The respondent was arrested and medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent under Sections 376/506 IPC. To establish its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the respondent denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He examined DW-1 (HC Ram Pal) and DW-2 (Megha Kapoor) in defence. The trial resulted in his acquittal as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the State has preferred the instant appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.

4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the entire case of the prosecution was based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix ‘X’. The Trial Court was of the view that there were material inconsistencies and infirmities in her statement and it was not safe to base conviction on her solitary testimony. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party throughout and there was no promise to marry ever given by the appellant to obtain her consent for physical relationship. The Trial Court relied upon various e-mails between the parties whereby the prosecutrix had not shown if there was any such promise of marriage by the respondent.

5. The prosecutrix ‘X’ and the respondent were acquainted with each other. They both were working in a company M/s Covergys. The respondent used to work in the said company. PW-2 (‘X’) disclosed that she joined M/s Convergys Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon in October, 2007. She was to undergo training course. The respondent was one of the trainers to train the entire batch. She further disclosed that during training, they used to interact with each other. They developed some sort of intimacy and continued talking to each other on phone after the training hours. From Prachi, the respondent came to know that ‘X’ was still unmarried. After coming to know about it, the respondent started talking to her more. They started dating each other. The respondent sent her text message ‘I like you. I like your smile’. Thereafter, they started dating each other and used to meet at restaurants in Gurgaon as well as in a park near the house of the respondent.

6. The first incident where allegedly the victim was sexually assaulted took place in January, 2008 when the respondent asked her to accompany him to his house to see his mother. When she went there, she did not find respondent’s mother. She deposed that the respondent took her to his bed room where they started talking to each other. Soon the respondent started touching her inappropriately. She opposed his moves but the respondent still continued to touch her. Suddenly he dashed her on the bed and forced himself upon her. She was shocked and could not respond to the respondent’s actions. He was not allowing her to speak and kept on repeating ‘wait wait’. He had k