The victim's inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence in sexual assault cases.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 20.9.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi in S.T. No. 326 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Mahesh and Others) and S.T. No. 79 of 2012 (State Vs. Neetu @ Netram and Others), under S.363, S.366 and S.376 I.P.C., Police Station - Kakarbai, District - Jhansi, arising out of Crime No. 96 of 2011, whereby Bhurey, Mahesh, Neetu @ Netram and Matey were found guilty under S.376(2)(g) I.P.C. and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Further they were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine under S.366 I.P.C. with default stipulation.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that as per the F.I.R. the accused Neetu @ Netram and Matey enticed away the victim on 9.2.2011 at 10 O'clock from her house. The informant and his family members were working in the fields, while the victim was alone in the house. Neetu and Matey were members of the dance party, who used to dance in the village. They had performed in the village of the informant for one month prior to the incident. The accused persons had stayed in the house of Deep Chandra and Jaipal of the same village. They were also distantly related to Deep Chandra. Many villagers had seen the accused taking away the victim, hence report was lodged.

3. Investigation was entrusted to P.W. 6 S.I. Abdul Aziz on 12.11.2011. He recorded the statement of the chick writer in the case diary on 17.12.2011. He also recorded the statement of the informant. He further recorded the statement of Shimmu, on whose pointing out the site plan was prepared which was proved as Exhibit Ka - 8, and was copied in the case diary. On 18.12.2011 the parents of the victim accompanied with police went to the Garautha crossing, where the victim was found standing. She was recovered from the Garautha crossing and brought to the police station. Her statements were recorded. She told the police that the accused Bhure had taken her away, who had kidnapped her. On 22.12.2011, the statement of the victim was got recorded under S.164 Cr.P.C., which was copied in the case diary.

4. After this, investigation was transferred to P.W. 5 Mahendra Prakash, who perused the statement of the victim recorded under S.164 Cr.P.C. He perused the investigation conducted by his predecessor, copied the supplementary and pathological report of the victim in his case diary, submitted the charge - sheet against the accused, which was proved by this witness. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Alpana Bartharia P.W. 4, who did not find any external or internal injuries on the body of the victim. Her hymen was torn and vagina was admitting two fingers easily. This witness proved the medical report and supplementary report.

5. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is Gyan Swaroop @ Kathuley, the informant, who proved the written report as Exhibit Ka - 1. P.W. 2 is the victim. P.W. 3 in S.T. No. 326 of 2012 is Constable Hari Om, who proved the chick report as Exhibit Ka - 3 and copy of general diary as Exhibit Ka - 4, whereas in S.T. No. 79 of 2012 P.W. 3 is Shimmu. P.W. 4 in both the S.T.s is Dr. Alpana Bartharia. P.W. 5 in S.T. No. 326 of 2012 is Mahendra Prakash. In S.T. No. 79 of 2012 P.W. 5 is S.I. Abdul Aziz. In the same case P.W. 6 is Mahendra Pratap Singh and P.W. 7 is Constable Hari Om, whereas in S.T. No. 326 of 2012 P.W. 6 is S.I. Abdul Aziz and P.W. 7 is Constable Gyanendra Prakash.

6. After examining seven witnesses the prosecution closed its evidence.

7. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under S.313 Cr.P.C. in both the cases, w