Material contradictions and lack of corroboration made the conviction unsustainable in a prosecution for procuration and criminal intimidation.

Material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and investigative gaps meant the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecutrix and her father was inconsistent on key factual details, the alleged tenant was not traced, and material witnesses were not examined. The accused's Section 313 CrPC explanation, including a plea of false implication due to prior litigation, was not properly considered. The conviction for criminal intimidation also lacked separate corroboration and analysis. On that basis, the conviction under Sections 366A and 506 IPC was held unsustainable and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for procuration of a minor girl and criminal intimidation could be sustained in view of material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, deficiencies in investigation, and the accused's defence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecutrix and her father contained material inconsistencies on the presence of witnesses, the description and duration of the alleged tenant's stay, the manner in which the FIR was recorded, and the sequence of events. The delay in lodging the complaint was not satisfactorily explained in the factual setting of the case, and the investigation failed to secure basic corroborative evidence, trace the alleged tenant, or examine material witnesses. The accused's explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including the plea of false implication arising from prior litigation, was not properly dealt with by the courts below. The conviction for criminal intimidation also lacked separate analysis and supporting corroboration.

Conclusion: The conviction under Sections 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

---