JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Government Pleader for the appellant.

2. This appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC challenges the acquittal of the accused, who was charged with commission of offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. The prosecution was moved into motion by a written report dated 18.6.1996 at P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri and it was alleged that the sister of the complainant, who was 14 years of age, when they went to ease in the field, accused Kashmir Singh, Pappu and Girish Chandra enticed away the prosecutrix, namely, the sister of the complainant. The complainant's mother started searching the prosecutrix, but the prosecutrix end the accused absconded and the complainant did not lodge the complaint because of the fear of being defamed. It was then disclosed that the accused had kidnapped the minor and therefore, the case being Crime no. 117 of 1996 under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was lodged. The police investigated the matter and the victim/ prosecutrix was recovered on 27.9.1996 from a village known as Bhanupura. She got her statement recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate. On investigation being over, charge sheet was laid before the Magisterial Court. The Magistrate being satisfied that the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, as Section 376 IPC was subsequently added from the medical test of the prosecutrix, charge sheet was submitted. As the case being triable by the Court of Sessions, the accused were summoned and they denied the charges. On denying the charges, they were set up for trial.

4. The prosecution examined about 5 witnesses of fact and the prosecutrix herself, which are follows:-

5. Document was filed, which was sought to be proved by leading evidence.

6. The learned counsel for the State has relied on the judgment of Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 (5) Laws (SC) 5 and the case of The State of Gujarat vs. B.L. Dave [(2021) 2 SCC 735] and has contended that this is a clear case, where despite the contour of acquittal, it is very clear that the prosecutrix, who was admittedly minor in age, her consent even if cannot be considered as consent and a heinous crime against the society has been committed by the accused. The child was recovered after three months and she had a featus of 5/8 months old, which shows the heinousness committed by the respondents and the case is similar to that of case of Guru Dutt Pathak (supra). It is further submitted that acquittal is perverse. The victim namely the prosecutrix was offered made to undergo the agony. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence recorded that the accused were the persons, who had enticed the girl, namely the prosecutrix from the custody of the parents. The evidence is not properly weighed by the learned Judge, while acquitting the accused.

7. Despite summons being served, none has appeared for the accused, hence we have heard this appeal and perused the record.

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