Point of Law : It is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Jaunpur, acquitting accused-respondent, who has been tried for commission of offence under Sections 363, 368, 376 and 120-B I.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that a complaint being Police Case No.352 of 2011 for commission of offence under Sections 363, 368, 376 and 120-B I.P.C. was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., wherein allegations were that the prosecutrix was married in June 2011 in Jaunpur, she was aged about 16 years and when she had gone to the school, the accused along with his friends took her in the Bolero Car and when the girl did not come back to her home, father of the prosecutrix after searched out her daughter in all places, he complaint the report at the police station and conveyed that she had gone with Rajesh Bindu. On the basis of F.I.R. dated 2.11.2011, the prosecutrix recorded the statement under Section 161 and then coming to the conclusion that prima facie offences under Sections 363, 368 were made out. Later on, the charge sheet was submitted by the Magistrate under Sections 363, 368, 376 and 120-B of the I.P.C. The police did not carried out any investigation and, therefore, complaint to the court was made, which culminated into fresh investigation and the police submitted the charge-sheet.

4. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of session as it was a sessions trial. The learned Sessions Judge summoned the accused and questioned him. The accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The Sessions Judge framed the charges of the accused as the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The State examined several witnesses and also produced documents. The genesis of the complaint also shows that all of them did unnatural act with her. The medical evidence showed that no rape was committed on her. This was what the doctor opined as there was no male sperm found.

5. After recording the evidence of the witnesses and perusing the material on record, the trial Court passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Learned AGA for the appellant-State, vehemently submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that taking into consideration the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as the documentary evidences produced by it, the trial Court ought to have held the accused guilty of the charges leveled against them. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, we are unable to accept the submission of counsel for the State. This is a case where we need to call the accused to this Court and retry him and then decide the matter. At the first blush, when the judgment in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deeput vs. State of NCT Delhi, decided on 7.8.2012 in Crl. Appeal No.2486 of 2009 goes to show that the judgment of the court-below is not perverse. We are unable to persuade ourselves to allow the appeal.

8. 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 appella