JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. None present for the original accused. This is a Government Appeal of the year 1992 listed time and again.

2. This appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.2.1992 passed by learned Special Judge, Bijnor acquitting accused-respondent who was tried for commission of offence under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 1/2.07.1990 at about midnight accused who was sleeping outstairs told the prosecutrix-Manju that her sister Anneta wife of deceased was suffering from Cholera and was taken to Bijnor and she too had to follow them to Bijnor but when prosecutrix came down the stairs accused Devraj flashed a knife and forcibly pulled the prosecutrix inside the room and committed rape on her.

4. The F.I.R culminated into charge-sheet and accused were committed to Sessions.

5. On being summoned, the accused-person pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The offence for which accused was charged was triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the accused-respondents were committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

6. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 4 witnesses enumerated as below :

7. In support of ocular version following documents were filed:

8. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents as mentioned above.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the order of acquittal is not justified in the eye of law as the prosecution had very well established the case against the accused. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence. Learned A.G.A. has lastly submitted the judgment impugned is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

10. 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.

11. 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 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.”

12. Further, in the case of “CHANDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA”, reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down the following principles;

“42. F