Judgment A. S. GODARA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, by leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-6-1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 57/78 thereby acquitting the accused-respondent of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 376, I. P. C. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story is that P. W. 8 Gheesa Ram, resident of village Jarao, lodged Ex. P. 6 written report at the Police Station, Padukalan on 21-2-1978 at 7 p. m. and it was alleged therein that P. W. 2 Smt. Gutki w/o Ramdeo, who is his son, went to his field situated in the out-skirts of the village wherein crops of wheat and grams were standing, at about 8 a. m. in the morning, to watch against any damage to the standing crops. When Smt. Gutki reached the mat (border strip), accused-respondent came to her and he forcibly caught hold of her and she was felled to the ground and he committed sexual intercourse with Smt. Gutki against her will and without her consent. Smt. Gutki shouted and cried which attracted P. W. 4 Raju Ram, P. W. 5 Baxa Ram and P. W. 6 Narayan. The accused seeing them coming nearer fled away from there. Smt. Gutki returned to her house and narrated this incident to the inmates of the house. ( 3 ) P. W. 8 Ummaid Singh, S. H. O. , registered Ex. P. 7 F. I. R. under Sections 447 and 376, I. P. C. and entrusted investigation of (Sic) (to) P. W. 9 Ram Gopal. Head Constable, Smt. Gutki was got medically examined by P. W. 1 Dr. Ram Pratap, Medical Officer-in-charge of P. H. C. Riyon Bari and it was found that there was a mark of nail scratch on the cheek of Smt. Gutki. There were also nail scratches on the inner part of the right thigh besides near the vagina of the prosecutrix. ( 4 ) THE accused-respondent was also medically examined and he was found to be competent to commit sexual intercourse. ( 5 ) P. W. 9 Ram Gopal inspected the alleged place of occurrence and prepared Ex. P. 10 site memo besides Ex. P. 4 memorandum. ( 4 ) THE accused-respondent was also medically examined and he was found to be competent to commit sexual intercourse. ( 5 ) P. W. 9 Ram Gopal inspected the alleged place of occurrence and prepared Ex. P. 10 site memo besides Ex. P. 4 memorandum. However, he did not find any positive sign of commission of the offences at the site, he also seized and took into possession clothes including "ghaghara" which the prosecutrix was wearing at the time of the alleged occurrence. The "ghaghara" besides "dhoti" of the accused-respondent which was also seized, were sent for chemical examination to the R. S. F. S. C. , Jaipur and, it was confirmed that there were positive signs of presence of human semen on the "ghaghara" whereas nothing positive was found on the "dhoti". ( 6 ) AFTER completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under the aforesaid Sections was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta, who in turn, committed the accused to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, who charged the accused with the commission of offences under Sections 376 and 447, I. P. C. to which the accused respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence the trial was completed. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and also filed documentary evidence. ( 8 ) THE accused-respondent was also examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and he denied the prosecution case and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He examined three defence witnesses in support of his case. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge held that the testimony of the prosecutrix as well as the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence, was self contradictory, suffered from intrinsic weakness and so not believable and, therefore, the accused was acquitted of the offences charged with and hence this appeal, as above. ( 10 ) I have heard the learned public prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent, perused the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment and considered the same carefully. ( 10 ) I have heard the learned public prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent, perused the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment and considered the same carefully. ( 11 ) THE learned public prosecutor has contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate ocular testimony of P. W. 2 besides P. W. 4 Raju Ram, P. W. 5 Baxa Ram and P. W. 6 Narayan correctly and in its right perspective and instead much emphasis was unnecessarily laid on the so called insignificant inconsistencies and contradictions which was but natural. Besides, since Smt. Gutki had had no grudge or any animosity to have falsely implicated the accused-respondent. The testimony of the prosecutrix was fully supported by the prosecution witnesses and the F. I. R. as well as medical evidence also lent full support to her ocular testimony. As a result, the learned trial judge fell into error and took an erroneous view of the prosecution evidence and thereby acquitted the accused and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is perverse. ( 12 ) THE learned P. P. has also while relying on the decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996 Cr LJ 1728) further contended that the learned trial judge proceeded to disbelieve the version of the prosecution besides her witnesses without having any regard to the reality, sanctity and the credibility attached to the testimony of the witnesses. ( 13 ) HE has further argued that since the prosecutrix was immediately taken to her house and she immediately narrated this incident to her mother-in-law and, lastly; when P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram her father-in-law returned from another village in the evening, he was told of the incident and he immediately went to the Police Station and lodged report at the Police Station and, therefore; the incident which is likely to reflect upon chastity of Smt. Gutki, cannot be held to have been falsely foisted on the accused-petitioner since neither Gheesa Ram nor Smt. Gutki had any axe to grind against the accused. Therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence of rape, it has been further submitted that this is a very strong case in which interference by way of setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence of rape, it has been further submitted that this is a very strong case in which interference by way of setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-respondent has contended that the present incident is alleged to have taken place on 21-2-1978 before 8 a. m. and, Ex. P. 7 F. I. R. was registered at 7 p. m. Therefore, there was an inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. Though, subsequently, the prosecution has some with a belated explanation in regard to delay thereby alleging that since Gheesa Ram had gone to another village and could return in the evening and, therefore, there was delay lodging F. I. R. by him. However, Ex. P. 6 report does not show that Gheesa Ram was out of station and only after his return, being informed about the incident, proceeded to lodge Ex. P. 6 report at the Police Station. Therefore, there was unexplained and unwarranted delay of 12 hours in lodging F. I. R. It all shows that the complaint side took this time for concocting a false story and by way of embellishments and exaggerations in lodging Ex. P. 6 after great deliberations and consultations for preparation of a false case against the accused-respondent. Besides, apparently, this incident took place about 19 years back and, presently, having regard to the provisions of Art. 21 of the Constitution, it is not warranted that the impugned judgment and order resulting in acquittal of the accused-respondent be set aside and the accused-respondent be required to undergo sentence at such a belated stage. ( 15 ) AS regards credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses, as is also fully borne out of the impugned judgment, the learned trial judge did not commit any error or illegality and the appreciation of the evidence has been made on the sound judicial considerations and there are no compelling reasons to disagree with the same to arrive at a different conclusion. He has virtually supported the impugned judgment. He has virtually supported the impugned judgment. ( 16 ) THE accused-respondent was charged with commission of offences under Sections 376 and 447, I. P. C. As regards offence punishable under Section 447, I. P. C. , there is not an iota of evidence showing that the alleged place whereat the alleged act of commission of sexual intercourse amounting to rape was committed, was a part of the field of Gheesa Ram. On the other hand P. W. 9 Ram Gopal who inspected the site and prepared Ex. P. 10 site-plan, has depicted the alleged place by mark b which is situated towards north-east corner of the field of Gheesa Ram. This place is out side the field of the complainant and place is shown to be that of way leading to the neighbouring fields. Neither Gheesa Ram nor any of his witnesses including Smt. Gutki stated that the alleged place shown by mark b in Ex, P. 10, Ram Gopal formed a part of field being in exclusive use and possession of Gheesa Ram etc. and, therefore, when it is not shown that the alleged place whereat the alleged incident is alleged to have taken place was in the possession to the exclusion of all and sundry, the same could have been subject matter of any criminal trespass as described under Section 441, I. P. C. Therefore, in absence of evidence, it cannot be held that the accused-respondent committed any offence as is defined under Section 441 being punishable under Section 447, I. P. C. and this finding of the learned trial judge does not warrant any interference. ( 17 ) NOW, as regards commission of offence punishable under Section 376, I. P. C. the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the accused-respondent committed sexual intercourse with Smt. Gutki against her will and without consent as described under Section 375, I. P. C. before the same could be punished under Section 376, I. P. C. ( 18 ) THE prosecution examined P. W. 2 Smt. Gutki and, P. W. 4 Raju Ram, P. W. 5 Baxa Ram and P. W. 6 Narayana alleging that these witnesses had actually seen the accused-respondent while committing sexual intercourse with Smt. Gutki who fled away from the place of occurrence after seeing them approaching to the place of occurrence. ( 19 ) P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram is father-in-law of Smt. Gutki. He has stated that Smt. Gutki who is wife of his son Ramdeo, had left for his field in the morning of the day of occurrence along with P. W. 6 Narayana, as are the statements of P. W. 6 Narayan and P. W. 2 Smt. Gutki, Gheesa Ram was present at the time Smt. Gutki left for the field. However, he stated that he had left for the village Suriyabas in the day and returned by the evening. He found that many ladies had assembled at his house and, on enquiry, Smt. Gutki started weeping and he was told by his wife that the accused-respondent had molested Smt. Gutki and Smt. Gutki was led from the place of occurrence to their house, he immediately went to the Police Station and lodged Ex. P. 6 report with P. W. 8 Ummaid Singh, as is also statement of Ummaid Singh, who registered Ex. P. 7 F. I. R. on the basis of Ex. P. 6 report. ( 20 ) IT is to be appreciated that it is not alleged in Ex. P. 6 report that since Gheesa Ram had left for village Suriyabas and could return back by the evening and on learning of the incident, as above, he reached the Police Station and so there was unavoidable delay in lodging of the F. I. R. , as above. Since, there was absolute omission Gheesa Rams having left for another village in the day and has returned only in the evening, this omission in Ex. P. 6 report and so also Ex. P. 7 F. I. R. , this explanation is belated and is not acceptable. Besides, Ex. P. 7 F. I. R. itself requires that in case there is delay in lodging of the F. I. R. , the same reason has to be given in column 4 printed on four side of the printed F. I. R. but such explanation is noted therein. Besides, P. W. 8 Ummaid Singh also did not seek any explanation for delay in lodging of F. I. R. from the informant immediately and, therefore, no explanation has been given in Ex. P. 6 itself. Therefore, there is apparent and unexplained delay of 12 hours. Besides, P. W. 8 Ummaid Singh also did not seek any explanation for delay in lodging of F. I. R. from the informant immediately and, therefore, no explanation has been given in Ex. P. 6 itself. Therefore, there is apparent and unexplained delay of 12 hours. Besides, P. W. 2 Smt. Gutki stated that she returned home and she narrated this incident immediately to her mother-in-law and P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram further stated that he was told of this incident by his wife on the basis of which he proceeded to lodge Ex. P. 6 report. However, the wife of Gheesa Ram has not been examined and so Ex. P. 6 cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration of statement of P. W. 2 Smt. Gutki was well since she never made any direct statement before Gheesa Ram nor did she inform him about this incident at any point of time before she gave statement in the Court. ( 21 ) P. W. 2 Smt. Gutki stated that she was given a lift on the bullock-cart of P. W. 6 Narayan and she was dropped about 20 paces away from the border of her field and Narayan drove away his cart towards his field. She further stated that she was heading towards her field through the way passing through the fields and the accused Baxa Ram was present at his field and he was taking heat from burning fire-woods. He signaled her to come nearer but she refused by giving signaling by her hand. She did not talk to him and instead she proceeded towards her field. She had hardly covered a distance of about 20 paces from there, the accused came running from behind and she was intercepted and was asked to come nearer to him. She cried but the accused caught hold of her in his arms and she was felled on, the ground. He also caused injuries on her cheeks by his nails of fingers and she was forcibly felled down and once she succeeded in getting up but she was again forcibly felled on the ground and the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her in spite of her resistance and making cries. She also stated that as a result of struggle clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident were torn. She also stated that as a result of struggle clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident were torn. Hearing her cries and shouting, P. W. 4 Raju Ram P. W. 5 Baxa Ram and P. W. 6 Narayan were attracted who approaching her and, meanwhile, accused got up and ran away from there, She was led to her house by P. W. 4 Raju Raj and narrated this incident to her mother-in-law. However, her father-in-law Gheesa Ram was out of village who returned in the evening who was told about the incident by her mother-in-law and, as a result. Gheesa Ram lodged a report with the police. She also stated that she was medically examined and she identified Art. 1 "ghaghra", Art. 2 "kurti" and Art. 3 "kanchali" which were seized by the police during the course of investigation. She also stated that she had never talked to or conversed with the accused on any occasion previous to the occurrence. She further admitted that her husband Ramdeo, besides, her two sisters-in-law were present at her house in the village. She clearly admitted that she had never gone for keeping a watch over the standing crops in her field earlier in the morning ever before and it was the first time that she had so left in the morning on the day of the occurrence alone. She also clearly admitted that usually short and convenient way for going to the field from their house is from the road leading from the village Jarao to Chawandiya and in case she had gone through the usual way, the field of the accused did not fall in between the road and her field while going to her field. She admitted that the hut of P. W. 4 was situated on the border of the field of P. W. 6 Narayan, as are the admissions of all the witnesses examined in this respect. She also clearly admitted that P. W. 4 Raju had a quarrel with the father of accused-respondent before this incident in regard to giving of grains by the father of the accused to Raju Ram who was a watch-man of their fields. She also clearly admitted that P. W. 4 Raju had a quarrel with the father of accused-respondent before this incident in regard to giving of grains by the father of the accused to Raju Ram who was a watch-man of their fields. She also admitted that the fields of D. W. 1 Jewan Ram, D. W. 2 Bhanwaru and D. W. 3 Mota Ram are situated near her fields and the distance of fields of Raju Ram and Narayan is much more than that of the distances of fields of the said defence witnesses from her fields. She also admitted that all these defence witnesses had also come to the place of occurrence at the time the prosecution witnesses reached there. She has stated that since the accused-respondent committed forcible sexual intercourse with her while she was felled on rough ground, she received bruises on her back and elbow which were shown to the Medical Officer. This is belied by the evidence of P. W. 1 Dr. Ram Pratap who specifically stated that he did not see any injury. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent has vehemently contended that had this been the case of forcible commission of sexual intercourse without consent, it was but natural that the prosecutrix ought to have received external injuries on the back portion of her body coming in contact with the rough ground whereat the alleged incident is alleged to have taken but there was none. Besides, Smt. Gutki falsely stated that the bangles which were so wearing at the time of occurrence were also broken and the pieces were lying scattered at the place of occurrence whereas P. W. 9 Ram Gopal did not find broken pieces of bangles lying there. ( 22 ) SHE also clearly admitted that nine of the witnesses who witnessed the occurrence, ran after the accused who was seen running away from the scene of occurrence though the witnesses were at hardly a distance of about 20 paces from the accused while he was seen running from the alleged place of occurrence, so are also the statements of Raju Ram, Baxa Ram and Narayan but they, admittedly, did not try to either chase or give a hot pursuit to accused who ran away from the place and picked up his cycle and drove away through the rough, irregular and sandy (sic) was passing through the fields. ( 23 ) P. W. 1 Dr. Ram Pratap medically examined Smt. Gutki on the next day of the occurrence and prepared Ex. P. 1 report. He stated that there was a sign of scratch of nail on the cheek of the prosecutrix. Besides, there were some scratches by the side and around the vaginal part of Smt. Gutki and he further admitted that these scratches could be self-inflicted. ( 24 ) AS regards Ex. P. 8 R. S. F. S. L. report and the statement of P. W. 1 Dr. Ram Pratap, though it is confirmed that some patches found on Art. 1 ghaghara confirmed that the same were of human semen but it also cannot be lost sight of the fact that Smt. Gutki was married and she was residing with her young husband Ramdeo and she was in the company of Ramdeo in the nights preceding as well as following the alleged incident. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the human semen was of the accused alone and was not of Ramdeo himself. ( 25 ) AS regards the alleged witnesses of the occurrence, P. W. 4 Raju Ram is, admittedly, a watch-man of Narayan and other cultivators whose fields are located nearby, as per his own admission, as is also admitted by Smt. Gutki, his field is situated at a distance extending more than 200 paces from the field of P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram. This distance, as borne out of Ex. P. 10 site-plan prepared by P. W. 9 Ram Gopal, was measured to be 230 paces, as is mentioned in Ex. P. 4 memorandum. Admittedly, there are fields wherein crops were standing situated between the hut whereat Raju Ram is alleged to have been present before he reached the place of occurrence. He heard the cries from the side of field of Gheesa Ram and, he immediately rushed towards the field of Gheesa Ram. Simultaneously, he was also followed by P. W. 6 Narayan from his field. They went running towards the field of Gheesa Ram and on reaching near the field of Gheesa Ram, they saw that Smt. Gutki was lying on the ground and Baxa Ram was lying over her. Smt. Gutki was crying. When they were about 10 to 20 paces from the place of occurrence, Baxa Ram got up and ran away from there. Smt. Gutki was crying. When they were about 10 to 20 paces from the place of occurrence, Baxa Ram got up and ran away from there. He also did not try to chase and catch Baxa Ram. He took Smt. Gutki to her house. He had stated in Ex. D. 3 police statement that he heard the cries of Smt. Gutki from a distance of about 30 paces from the place of occurrence but he denied to have given such a statement which is proved by P. W. 9 Ram Gopal. Since it was not possible for him to have heard cries of a lady, who could not have shouted at the top of her voice from a distance of 230 paces from the place of occurrence and so he has clearly given a false statement in Ex. D. 3 police statement previously that he heard the cries from a distance of 30 paces which enabled him to reach the place of occurrence to witness the acts so committed by the accused with Smt. Gutki. He previously stated that Smt. Gutki was left at a distance of about 10 paces from her house and he returned while he has, presently, stated that he had left her in her own house whereat the mother-in-law of Smt. Gutki was present. He did not narrate this incident either to the mother-in-law of Smt. Gutki nor did he again tell this incident to P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram. He also falsely stated that it was bleeding from the cheeks of Smt. Gutki which is belied by the medical evidence besides the statement of Smt. Gutki herself. He clearly admitted that he was also engaged as a watch-man of the crops standing in the fields of the accused through his father and that he used to be given a part of food-grains so produced in the fields of the accused as well. ( 26 ) P. W. 5 Baxa Ram clearly stated that his field is situated at a distance of about 300 paces from the field of the occurrence and; hearing cries of Smt. Gutki he ran towards the place of occurrence. ( 26 ) P. W. 5 Baxa Ram clearly stated that his field is situated at a distance of about 300 paces from the field of the occurrence and; hearing cries of Smt. Gutki he ran towards the place of occurrence. Both Raju Ram and Narayan were ahead of him she was at a distance of about 30 paces from the alleged place of occurrence, accused-got-up and tying his "dhoti", ran away from there and, after covering a little distance from there, took his cycle and drove away on the same. He found that clothes of Smt. Gutki were torn and there were also marks of scratches on her body. He also stated that Smt. Gutki was telling that the accused had molested her. He returned to his village. However, he admitted that Smt. Gutki never spoke to him or in his presence. He further stated that the field of P. W. 6 Narayan is situated even at a distance of more than 100 paces from the hut whereat Raju Ram was residing and so the distance of field of Narayan was at any rate, much more than 300 paces from the place of the occurrence. He had previously stated in Ex. D 4 police statement before P. W. 9 Ram Gopal that when he was at a distance of about 80 paces from the place of occurrence, he saw the accused running from the place of occurrence. He had not mentioned the above words which he had heard before he left from his field towards the place of occurrence in Ex. D. 4 police statement so previsouly given before the police. He also falsely stated that he saw some stains on the "ghaghara" which Smt. Gutki was wearing at the time since even Smt. Gutki has not stated so and, besides, none of the alleged other eye-witnesses have also supported this fact. ( 27 ) LASTLY, P. W. 6 Narayan, who is alleged to have given a lift to Smt. Gutki in. the morning and left her by the side of her field, stated that after dropping her near her field, he drove away his bullock-cart towards his field. He stated that he had covered a distance of about 200 paces from there and then he heard the cries of Smt. Gutki ", on which he stopped his bullock-cart there and immediately ran towards the alleged place of occurrence. He stated that he had covered a distance of about 200 paces from there and then he heard the cries of Smt. Gutki ", on which he stopped his bullock-cart there and immediately ran towards the alleged place of occurrence. P. W. 4 Raju Ram had also come there. When he was at a distance of about 30 paces from the place of occurrence, he saw the accused leaving Smt. Gutki and, while tying his dhoti, fleeing away from there. He took his cycle and left from there after riding the same. Both Baxa ram and Raju Ram also reached the scene of occurrence. He also stated that Raju Ram led Smt. Gutki to her house while he had returned to his village. He admitted that Gheesa Ram was his grand-father in distant relation. It is to be appreciated that he was a relation of Smt. Gutki and had he seen the occurrence and it all happened without the willingness and consent of Smt. Gutki, it was but natural for him as well as Baxa Ram and, lastly, Raju Ram to have chased and attempted to catch the accused-respondent while running from the scene of occurrence. The accused could not have successfully and quickly run away on a bicycle through a rough and sandy tract passing through the fields. None of them attempted in this respect: The accused was, in case these witnesses are believed to have seen the occurrence, allowed to flee away safely and securely without being pursued any more. Besides, neither Baxa Ram or Narayan being the relations of Smt. Gutki, accompanied to her house and instead she was allowed to leave for her house in the company of P. W. 4 Raju Raj who had nothing to do with the family of Gheesa Ram. The field of Narayan is situated far beyond a distance of more than 300 paces from the place of occurrence. No witness from immediate neighbouring fields has been examined by the prosecution and instead it is the defence coming forward with the evidence of D. W. 1 Jeewan Ram, D. W. 2 Bhanwaru and D. W. Mota Ram whose presence has been admitted by Smt. Gutki as well. They have stated that they were present at their fields at the time of the occurrence. They have stated that they were present at their fields at the time of the occurrence. Though their presence is falsely denied by P. W. 4 Raju Ram, P. W. 5 Baxa Ram and P. W. 6 Narayan and they have clearly stated that no such occurrence took place as is alleged by the prosecution. Besides, the fields of Baxa Ram, Raju Ram and Narayan are situated at much more distance from the fields of these defence witnesses and since there were crops standing in the fields nearby situated between the fields of the prosecution witnesses who are alleged to have seen the occurrence and the field of P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram and, therefore, since Smt. Gutki was newly married wife of Ramdeo and she would never talk before any of the aforesaid persons besides her members of the family, she could not have cried so loudly that the persons present at the distance of 300 paces or more from the place of occurrence could have heard her cries attracting those persons. Besides, had she cried and resisted the assault of the accused and struggled hard and went on crying, as are the statements of the witnesses, though they are self-contradictory besides being contrary to those previously stated before the Investigating Officer, it would show that the accused could not have been able to commit any sexual intercourse forcibly against her will and without her consent. Even after her cries and resistance which could have automatically, if it is believed, attracted presence of the neighbouring witnesses. This could not have afforded enough time to the accused to have accomplished the act of commission of sexual intercourse with Smt. Gutki before the witnesses reached the place of occurrence. Smt. Gutki also did not try to catch hold of and snatching dhoti etc. of the accused while he wanted hurriedly to run away from the place of occurrence even after seeing the witnesses nearer to her. ( 28 ) BESIDE, it is to be appreciated that as per the admission of Smt. Gutki herself, she never went to her field so early in the morning specially alone. of the accused while he wanted hurriedly to run away from the place of occurrence even after seeing the witnesses nearer to her. ( 28 ) BESIDE, it is to be appreciated that as per the admission of Smt. Gutki herself, she never went to her field so early in the morning specially alone. Her usual way was not through or by the side of the field of the accused through which she was going to her field on the day of the occurrence and instead there was another convenient and approachable way through which they usually went to their fields. ( 29 ) P. W. 6 Narayan has further stated that he was the first person to have seen the accused committing sexual intercourse with Smt. Gutki whereas he stated in Ex. D. 5 statement before the police that he saw the occurrence while he was at a distance of about 15 paces from the place of occurrence though he has, subsequently, denied such a statement having ever been given before the Investigating Officer. He falsely further stated that there were blood stains lying on the ground and it is belied by the statement of P. W. 9 Ram Gopal besides Ex. P. 10 and Ex. P. 4 prepared at the time of the inspection of the place of occurrence by him. He even went to the extent of stating that semen stains were also visible there: He could not explain as to why he did not take Smt. Gutki to her house. His conduct is most unnatural and unbelievable on his admission that he neither went to the house of Narayan in the morning after having seen the alleged occurrence nor did he go to his house to narrate this incident before P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram later on. His conduct is most unnatural and unbelievable on his admission that he neither went to the house of Narayan in the morning after having seen the alleged occurrence nor did he go to his house to narrate this incident before P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram later on. ( 30 ) IN this view of the fact that Smt. Gutki herself has admitted that since P. W. 4 Raju Ram picked up a quarrel with the father of the accused and that the accused also admitted that Raju Ram being inimical with his family, falsely deposed against him and he also took Smt. Gutki to her house whereas since no incident took place or, even if it is assumed that any such incident took place, P. W. 6 Narayan and P. W. 5 Baxa Ram did not take it seriously and conducted in a most unnatural and unbelievable manner showing that no such incident much against the wishes and willingness of the prosecutrix could have taken place and, therefore, as is concluded hereinbefore, P. W. 7 Gheesa Ram being present at his house; there was an inordinate delay in lodging of the F. I. R. and lodging report Ex. P. 6 at the Police Station and, there was hardly a distance of 10-12-kms. from the village to the Police Station and; consequently, the explanation of delay so belatedly given being quite unbelievable and false, it further lends corroboration to the defence theory that either no incident took place or that, at any rate, it was a matter of consent on the part of Smt. Gutki as a result of which she had left her house early in the morning lonely to be at her field and, since it was already much after the sun-rise when almost all fields were watched by their owners and, therefore, in the broad day light, accused could not have assaulted Smt. Gutki in spite of her unwillingness and resistance to the evil design and illegal acts thereby enabling the accused to succeed in commission of the alleged act of seducing to illicit sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. ( 31 ) AS a result, while relying on the decision in Dhanna v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 6 JT (SC) 652 : (1996 Cri LJ 3516), it has been further argued that since this is an appeal against acquittal of the accused-respondent and so while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Court has to bear in mind first, that there is general presumption in favour of the innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal, the second is, every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the trial Court acquitted him, he would retain that benefit in the appellate Court also. Therefore, it is further contended that the appellate Court in appeals against acquitted has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record, that the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed. ( 32 ) PRESENTLY, as is discussed above, the learned Sessions Judge, while thoroughly appraising and scanning the prosecution evidence besides the defence evidence, specially when the presence of the defence witnesses is their fields and their arrival at the place of occurrence has been admitted by the prosecutrix herself and their presence being quite natural, looking to the conduct of the prosecution witnesses, when it is the view in respect of the evidence led by the prosecution in support of the case was possible and, even if second view as opposed to the same is also equally possible the appellate Court cannot be justified to substitute the latter view in place of the former view taken by the learned trial judge. When both views are possible, one favourable to the accused has to be accepted. ( 33 ) THE learned trial Judge did not commit any serious illegality or irregularity to have arrived at the conclusion to pass a verdict of not guilty in favour of accused thereby acquitting him of the offences charged with and so no interference is warranted. When both views are possible, one favourable to the accused has to be accepted. ( 33 ) THE learned trial Judge did not commit any serious illegality or irregularity to have arrived at the conclusion to pass a verdict of not guilty in favour of accused thereby acquitting him of the offences charged with and so no interference is warranted. ( 34 ) IN view of the fact that this appeal is being disposed of after about 19 years of the alleged incident and the accused-respondent was acquitted of the said charges impugned judgment and, therefore, after a careful and reappraisal of the prosecution evidence, discussed and summarised above, it appears that no interference is warranted and there are no compelling reasons to interfere with and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal under appeal. ( 35 ) ON the basis of above discussion, there in no justification for accepting this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. ( 36 ) THIS appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal thereby acquitting the accused-respondent of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 376, I. P. C. is affirmed. The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not surrender to the same. His bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal dismissed. .