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 views are possible, appellate court should not interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by court-below.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 (3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 376 - Commission of offence - Rape - Order of Acquittal - Appeal - Husband of prosecutrix, stating that he had gone to school where he was teacher - His neighbor (accused/respondent) entered his house where his wife was alone - On pointing out of knife, Accused threatened his wife and by molesting, tried to rape her and on making hue and cry by his wife, accused fled away by giving life threat to her.
Finding of the court : It is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial- court - Ingredients of said offence were also held not to be proved on touchstone of judgments on which learned Judge placed reliance - Court view that findings recorded by court-below are absolutely just and proper and while recording said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by court-below - We are also in complete agreement with reasoning and findings arrived at by learned trial-court - Therefore, we hold that learned trial Judge has not committed any error, which requires interference by this Court under Section 378 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code.
Result : Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.2.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Gautambudh Nagar, in S.T. No.69 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.199 of 2015 under Sections 452, 376 IPC, Police Station-Jarcha, District-Gautambudh Nagar, whereby the respondent-original accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that a first information report was lodged at Police Station-Jarcha by Sube Singh, husband of the prosecutrix, stating that on 14.8.2015, he had gone to school where he was teacher. At about 11:30 am, his neighbor Sachin (accused/respondent) entered his house where his wife was alone. On the pointing out of knife, Sachin threatened his wife and by molesting, tried to rape her and on making hue and cry by his wife, Sachin fled away by giving life threat to her.

3. A case crime bearing No.199 of 2015 was registered at the police station under Sections 452, 376 IPC against accused Sachin. Investigating Officer recorded statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared site-plan. The statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before competent Magistrate and she was also medically examined. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 452, 376 IPC.

4. The case was triable exclusively by the court of sessions, therefore, it was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial-court framed charges against the accused under Sections 452, 376 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After recording the evidence, the court-below acquitted the respondent of all the charges vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.2.2020. Hence, this appeal.

5. Heard Ms.Alpana Singh, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State of UP and perused the record.

6. Learned AGA submitted that the trial-court has committed grave error while acquitting the respondent/accused since there was sufficient evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime; learned trial-court has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. She has also submitted that evidence on record is enough to lead the conviction of the respondent because the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution version in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even she has supported the prosecution case before learned trial-court, but the trial-court failed to give correct appreciation of evidence and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent.

7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the principles, which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial-court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala &Another,[(2006) 6 SCC 39], the Apex Court has narrated the powers of High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In paragraph-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 views 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 Kanataka [(2007) 4 SCC 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 acqui