Point of Law: When the conviction is based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution/prosecutrix and the deposition of the prosecutrix is full of material contradictions and that there was already a dispute between the accused and the family members of the prosecutrix and no independent witnesses have been examined, it is not safe to convict the accused solely on such testimony of the prosecutrix-PW-5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentenced imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.” It further stated that.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 11187007201253 of 2020 registered with Santrampur Police Station, Mahisangar for offence under Sections 376D, 376(2)(n), 377, 506(2) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Asim Pandya with learned advocate Mr. Aditya Bhatt, appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the bail application deserves consideration on the ground that the version given by the prosecutrix is not consistent when the statement of the prosecutrix and the medical history recorded by the Medical Officer is compared. It is submitted that the versions are quite contradictory and virtually the accused No. 1 has been exonerated from the reading of version recorded by the Medical Officer. It is submitted that the statement of the prosexutrix can also be doubted as the same is not supported by the medical evidence. Even after filing of the charge-sheet, there is nothing on record to suggest that forcibly sexual intercourse had taken place as though the investigation was launched almost immediately; there is no sign of injury or presence of spermatozoon either on the cloth of the accused or the prosecutrix.

3.1 He submitted that the version of the prosecutrix can also be doubted as at different stages she had described the place of incident differently; thereby putting to doubt the consistency in her version. It is submitted that not only the version of the victim, but also supporting witnesses put to doubt the case of the prosecution, as husband of the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix is staying at her maternal house for past 10 to 15 days, whereas mother of the prosecutrix in her statement has stated that the prosecutrix has not visited the house of the husband for past three months. Learned senior advocate submitted that primarily the FIR is registered on account of financial aspect as in the FIR itself, the applicant has stated that she was induced on account of money promised by accused No. 1 for entering into relationship and therefore, for substantial period, the relationship was in the nature of consensual relation more particularly when the prosecutrix is aged around 38 years married and having two children. Learned senior advocate even went to the extent of castigating the prosecutrix to be a lady of easy virtue. It is submitted that the applicant's case also deserves consideration on the ground of improper investigation as during the investigation, no video recording is found which the prosecutrix has alleged that the accused persons were threatening her and blackmailing her by using obscene videos/photos. It is submitted that no CDR is on the record of investigation to substantiate the version of the prosecutrix that all the accused persons frequently calling her and harassing her. Learned advocate has thereafter, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in support of his contention that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be the basis of conviction, but such version of the prosecutrix must be able to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court and should also be supported by surrounding circumstances. If the surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and relied version of the prosecutrix then the conviction cannot be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix. The applicant has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharasthra and Others, (2006) 10 SCC 92, Ram Murti vs. State of Haryana, (1970) 3 SCC 21, Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 57 and upon unreported judgment in the case of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2020.

4. As against, this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed