The credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the importance of corroborative evidence, and the requirement of proving the age of the prosecutrix were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-State against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the learned court of Sessions in FIR No.109/2012, registered at Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi for the offences under Sections 376 (2)(g)/506/34 IPC, whereby respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences charged with.

2. The facts of the present case, as enumerated in the petition, are that on 20.03.2012, the complainant (prosecutrix) filed a complaint in the police station that on 19.03.2012 at around 05:00 pm in the evening while she was standing at Sagarpur Bus Stand a boy, namely, Ashish offered her to accompany him to the market and thereafter, took her to his house, i.e. C-4, Janakpuri, where no one was present. Respondent No.1-accused made physical relations with her and also called his friend respondent No.-2-accused to his house. The complainant stated that respondent No.2 reached on a motorcycle and she along with respondents No.1 and 2 went to Gurugram on his bike, from where they took her to Chanakya Hotel, Gurugram. She was forced to drink liquor, thereafter both of them committed wrong acts upon her. Complainant further stated that thereafter the respondents left her on railway track from where two boys and two girls lifted her and took her to the hospital in unconscious condition. She further stated that she told her name, however, could not tell her father's name and residential address. She also stated that she could identify both the accused-respondents as well as the flat where they had committed wrong acts upon her. On the complaint of the prosecutrix-complainant, who was aged 17 years old on the date of incident, her medical examination was conducted at AIIMS Trauma Centre and FIR No.109/2014 for the offence under Section 376/506/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi.

3. After completion of the investigation, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges against the accused persons were framed for the offences punishable U/s 376 (2) (g) IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case. PW-2 (Victim); PW-3 Neha Chauhan, PW-4 Anjali Tiwari, PW-5 Deepak and PW-6 Ankit were the public witnesses who had picked up the prosecutrix in an unconscious state from the railway track and got her admitted to Charak Palika Trauma Centre, from where she was first referred to AIIMS and then to Safdarjang Hospital. PW-7 is the father of victim. Besides these witnesses some official witnesses, Const. Rajender Kumar (PW-1), HC Sanjay Kumar (PW-8), Sandeep Sharma (PW-9), Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-10), Constable Vikram Yadav (PW-11), HC Rajiv Kumar (PW-14), SI Ashwani Kumar (PW-15) and IO Inspector Usha Sharma (PW-18) were examined. Thereafter, statement of accused persons/respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they pleaded innocence and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. However, no evidence was led by them in their favour.

5. Learned Trial court vide impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 26.11.2019 acquitted the accused persons-respondents herein from all the offences charged with by giving them benefit of doubt.

6. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-State against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2019 on the ground that the Trial court has acquitted the accused persons-respondents on the basis of imagined inferences and by drawing wrong conclusions which were not based on the factual matrix of the case. Petitioner-State has averred that the Trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the accused persons were not guilty of offences charges with despite the fact that there is ample material on record to establish that the respondents/accused had committed the offence.

7. During the course of hearing, learned APP for State submitted that during her examination-in-chief, the pros