JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the informant against respondent No. 2 against his acquittal in S.T. No. 45 of 2015 (State vs. Nilendra @ Mithun) arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Dholna, District-Kasganj. The aforesaid judgment and order was passed by trial court on 03.09.2022, by which the respondent was acquitted of all charges.

2. Heard Shri Awadh Narian Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA.

3. The allegations are made against the respondent No. 2 by appellant/informant that on 02.06.2013 his daughter, aged about 15 years, was going to attend the marriage of her friend at about 12:00 noon. Respondent No. 2 along with others enticed away his daughter. This occurrence was seen by the son of the informant, who was going after them by cycle.

4. The aforesaid FIR was culminated into charge sheet and prosecution examined 9 witnesses in its support and filed documentary evidence also.

5. 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.

6. 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 SCC 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 acquittal recorded by the Court below.”

7. Further, in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (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 acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes” etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal