Point of law: It is by now well settled that Appellate Court hearing appeal filed against judgment and order of acquittal will not overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if Appellate Court does not find substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. If Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's decision was based on erroneous view of law.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.2.1986, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Shahjahanpur, in Session Trial No.300 of 1985 (State vs. Khushi Ram & another) arising out of Case Crime No.172 of 1985 under Sections 376, 380 and 376/114 IPC, Police Station-Sehramau (South), District-Shahjahanpur, whereby learned trial Judge acquitted both the accused persons of all the charges.

2. Brief facts of this case are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant stating that on 20.3.1985 at about noon, accused persons Khushi Ram and Satish entered the house of prosecutrix, who is a married lady, where she was alone. Her father and sister were also away from the home. Accused persons shut the main door of the house and accused-Khushi Ram committed the rape upon the prosecutrix forcibly. Accused-Satish caught hold the prosecutrix during the course of commission of the crime. Satish also took jewelry and cash of the prosecutrix at the time of running from the home. Investigation was taken up by SI-Bhagat Singh, who visited the spot and prepared the site-plan. Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and medical report as well as supplementary report were prepared. After completing the evidence, charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons. The case being exclusively triable by court of session was committed to the court of session for trial by competent Magistrate. Learned trial-court framed charges against the accused-Khushi Ram under Sections 376 and 380 IPC and against the accused-Satish under Section 376 read with Sections 114 and 380 IPC.

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

4. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documentary evidence was produced and contents were proved by leading the evidence :-

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the evidence and said that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. No witness was examined in defence.

6. We have heard Shri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State of UP as well as Shri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the record.

7. 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.

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 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 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 ac