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 :

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 6.7.2012.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Mainpuri, in Session Trial No.299 of 2003 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Avaneesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.67 of 2001 under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC and in Session Trial No.204 of 2004 (State of UP vs. Smt.Girja Devi, Viresh Kumar, Arvind Kumar and Rajveer) under Sections 363 & 366, Police Station Bhongaon, District-Mainpuri, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents.

2. The brief facts of this case are that on 24.2.2001, written report has been lodged by the complainant-Surendra Kumar alleging therein that at about 12:00 (afternoon) on 20.2.2001, when he and Rajesh (brother) were taking lunch at his house, the wife of the owner of his house along with her brother Avaneesh and Viresh Kumar reached there and told the complainant that some relatives had arrived at their house, therefore, she is taking his daughter, prosecutrix to help her in cooking the food. Since, those persons had terms to visit his house occasionally, therefore, he did not object to it, and, as such, those persons took his daughter with them. When the prosecutrix did not come back even in the evening, he reached at the house of Jang Bahadur in Village-Milika, but no one met him there. Thereafter, the complainant made efforts to trace out his daughter with above noted persons. During the course of search, Pradeep Kumar and Shanker Lal r/o Village-Alipur Khera, told him that they have seen the prosecutrix in the company of above persons at the Bhongaon road crossing at about 4:00 pm. The complainant made his best efforts to trace out his daughter, but in vain.

3. On the basis of this written report, a case was registered against the wife of Jang Bahadur, Viresh Kumar and Avaneesh. After registration of the case, the investigation followed. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, visited the site and prepared the site-plan. The prosecutrix was recovered on 8.11.2001 from the custody of accused Avaneesh Kumar during the course of investigation. After investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet against the accused, namely, Arvind Kumar, Rajveer, Smt.Girja Devi and Viresh Kumar.

4. Accused-Avaneesh Kumar was charged under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC whereas Smt.Girja Devi, Viresh Kumar, Arvind Kumar and Rajveer under Sections 363 & 366 IPC. The case being exclusively triable by court of session was committed for trial to the court of session by competent Magistrate. 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. After prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they told that false evidence has been led against them. They did not examine any witness in defence.

9. We have heard Shri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State-appellant and perused the record. None appears for the acquitted accused-respondents.

10. B