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 well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, appellate Court should not interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by Court below.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Tyagi, J.

1. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This appeal under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Varanasi acquitting accused-respondent who have been tried for commission of offence under Sections 376, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 6.2.2014 the prosecutrix was alone at her home and at about 9.00 p.m., when the children were sleeping, the accused who was known to the family entered the house, closed the door from inside and had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will. The prosecutrix tried to lodge complaint on 10.2.2021 but the police did not record the same and, therefore, on 10.2.2021 she moved concerned Magisterial Court who directed investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The First Information Report was lodged as 114 of 2014 on 21.3.2014.

4. The accused was nabbed and on 8.7.2015, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The prosecution examined about five witnesses. P.W.1 was the prosecutrix, P.W.2 was Ram Lal, Sub-Inspector, P.W.3 was Ramesh Yadav, P.W.4 was Mohd. Alamgir & P.W.5 was Dr. Sakshi Gupta who medically examined the prosecutrix. The prosecution relied on eight documents which are sought to be proved by the oral testimony of the witnesses. After the prosecution evidence was completed, the accused was put to question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and accept stating that he was falsely implicated and no such incident had occurred, the accused did not lead any evidence nor he examined any witness.

5. The learned Sessions Judge raised two points of determination namely; (a) whether the First Information Report was belated & (b) whether the victim was forced to enter into sexual intercourse against her will and wish.

6. 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.

7. 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 & ANR”, (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 appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below.”

8. Further, in the case of “CHANDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA”, reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down the following principles;

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

[3] Various expressions, such as,“substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusio