Point of Law: In any event High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, appellate Court should not interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by Court.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. This appeal under Section 378 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.3.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Hapur, in Session Trial No.245 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2014 under Sections 376, 366, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station-Garh Mukteshwar, District-Hapur, whereby the learned trial-court acquitted the accused-respondents.

2. The brief facts of this case are that on 3.3.2014 at about 7:00 pm, Dharmendra s/o Dharmpal, brother-in-law of elder sister-Archana of complainant, sister-in-law Anita, Nand Kumar (nandoi)and Surendri w/o Nand Kumar came to her house. At that time, the complainant was alone in her house. They all said that her elder sister, namely, Archana was seriously ill and admitted in the hospital so they had come to take her to the hospital. Subsequently, they forcibly put her in a car and took her to dance-club at Ganga Nagar. There, they prepared some documents misguiding her for marriage and since then Dharmendra continuously kept her in dance-club and committed rape. On 23.3.2014 at about 5:00 pm, they left her at Garh-crossing and threatened her not to lodge any report.

3. On the basis of this report, Case Crime bearing No.154 of 2014 was registered against all the accused-respondents under Sections 366, 376/120-B IPC against Anita, Nand Kumar, Smt.Surendri and Dharmendra.

4. Investigation started by SI-Brijendra Singh, who recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the spot, prepared site-plan and after completing the investigation, another I.O., namely, B.P.Singh submitted charge-sheet against all the respondents. The case being exclusively triable by court of session was committed for trial to the court of session by competent Magistrate.

5. Learned trial-court framed charges under Sections 366, 376 and 506 IPC against the accused Dharmendra and under Sections 366, 376/120-B IPC against Anita, Nand Kumar and Smt.Surendri. Accused persons denied charges and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution produced following witnesses, namely:

7. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading evidence:

8. We have heard Shri N.K.Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-appellant, Shri Nigamendra Shukla and Shri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the record.

9. Before we embark on testimony and the judgment of the Court below, the contours for interfering in Criminal Appeals where accused has been held to be non guilty would require to be discussed.

10. The principles, which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal, passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 S.C.C.39,the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:

“54. In any event the High Court entertained an a