.

JUDGMENT :

SAROJ YADAV, J.

1. This appeal along with application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) read with Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC/ST Act”) has been filed by the State-appellant against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Special Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2017, Crime No. 264 of 2017, under Section 376D of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Fardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted.

2. Heard Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-appellant.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are:

A First Information Report (in short “F.I.R.”) was lodged by the victim/complainant against the accused-respondents on 13.09.2017 stating that on 09.09.2017 at about 7.00 PM, while she had gone to ease herself in the field of sugarcane near her village, the accused persons namely Chhote Verma and Hemnath, who were ambushing in the field of sugarcane, caught her and gagged her mouth and committed rape on her one by one. When the victim did not return home, her husband reached at the spot, then accused persons Chhote Verma and Hemnath ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the victim narrated the entire incident to her husband.

4. The case was investigated and charge sheet submitted against the accused persons/respondents. The Magistrate concerned after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused persons. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove charges levelled against the accused respondents examined the victim as PW-1, Sushil Kumar (husband of the victim) as PW-2, Dr. Yamini Badal as PW-3, Constable Sarita as PW-4 and Ravindra Verma, Investigating Officer/Circle Officer, Sadar as PW-5. Necessary documents were also proved by the prosecution i.e. Exhibits 1 to 5.

5. Learned A.G.A. assailed the impugned judgment submitting that learned Trial Court discarded the evidence of the victim and her husband without any proper and legal reason. The prosecution has proved charges levelled against the accused persons by the evidence of PW-1victim. The victim is a married lady and she belongs to the scheduled caste. The trial Court has committed a grave error in not relying on the statement of the victim. The medical evidence has also corroborated the version of prosecution. Hence the impugned judgment and order is illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

6. Considered the submissions advanced by learned A.G.A. perused the impugned judgment and order and the record of the Trial Court.

7. It is settled law that conviction can be made in case of rape on the basis of sole testimony of the victim but the testimony should be such as to raise confidence of the Court and the Court finds that genuine and reliable. If the evidence of victim suffers from contradictions and not of high quality, then it shall not be just and legal to convict the accused relying upon her evidence. In such situation, the Court should look for corroboration. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 has held as under:

“No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality.”

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 has laid down as under:

“In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber