The judgment emphasized the principle that an appellate court must bear in mind the double presumption in favor of the accused in case of acquittal and should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 22/Sessions, titled, "State of J&K v. Anil Kumar Sarthi" in FIR No. 43/2008 of Police Station, Janipur Jammu, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for commission of offence under section 376 RPC.

2. The judgment is impugned on the ground that there was sufficient material on record to convict the respondent but the learned trial court has not appreciated the law and facts of the case in its right perspective, which has resulted into unjustified acquittal of the respondent.

3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG representing the appellant-State vehemently argued that the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she was raped by the respondent but despite that the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent by wrongly appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. Brief facts, as they emerge from the prosecution story, are that the father of the prosecutrix-Ashwani Kumar lodged a written report with SHO Police Station, Janipur for registration of FIR against the respondent for commission of offence under section 376 RPC. It was stated that the respondent came from village Chohada about a month back and started residing with his family at Janipur being the son of his sister-in-law. He and his wife were working as labourers at different houses and the respondent committed rape upon his daughter in their absence, who was 12 years of age. She did not disclose the occurrence on account of threat extended to her by the respondent and disclosed the occurrence after 10 days to her mother. The respondent without informing them left the place. His daughter complained pain in her stomach and then narrated the occurrence to her mother on 19.05.2008. On the receipt of application, FIR bearing No. 43/2008 for commission of offence under section 376 RPC was registered on 20.05.2008. Investigation of the case was handed over to Tarsem Raj, A.S.I. The prosecutrix was examined by the doctor and statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as also under section 164-A Cr.P.C. The accused was also arrested and the underwear of the prosecutrix was also seized, sealed and got resealed from Executive Magistrate. The same was sent to FSL for expert opinion. The Investigating Officer concluded the investigation by establishing that in night of 03.05.2008 at about 11 P.M., the prosecutrix went out of her Jhuggi to urinate and in the meantime, the accused who was her cousin and putting up in their Jhuggi also came out of Jhuggi and caught hold of the prosecutrix and threatened her with life. Thereafter, the accused removed her pant and underwear and also after undressing himself, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The final report after completion of the investigation was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 30.06.2008. The case remained pending before the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and thereafter, it was transferred to the learned trial court. The charge for commission of offence under section 376 RPC was framed against the respondent. As the respondent did not plead guilty, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution has examined 08 witnesses out of the total 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution.

6. The learned trial court vide judgment impugned acquitted the respondent of the charge for commission of offence under section 376 RPC. The learned trial court while acquitting the respondent, laid stress on the delay in registration of the FIR, the negative medical opinion and also the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

7. As this court is dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the trial court, it is apt to examine the scope of i