Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-This State appeal has been filed under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment of learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 61/86 dated 20.06.1987 whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376, IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that PW. 4 Geeta presented a written report in the Police Station, Bilara on 30.01.1986 at 4:45 P.M. alongwith her uncle Prem Prakash (CW. 1) before Rakesh Puri (PW. 8), SHO, Police Station, Bilara with the averments that in the morning of 30.01.1986 while she was going to the field of her father at about 10:00 AM carrying meal for him in a small parcel (Potali), when she reached at the outskirts of village and going through a way which was adjacent to the pits (created by digging the soil for the purpose of constructing houses), Nemla, the accused appeared and stopped her. He asked her to put down the parcel of meal and threatened that else she would be stabbed by knife. She saw here and there if somebody could help her but nobody was there. Out of fear, she put down the parcel. The accused then started dragging her to the pits nearby. She made hue and cry and sat down on ground. The accused then forcibly made her to lay there, removed her petticoat (Ghaghra), became necked by removing the Dhoti worn by him and started committing rape on her. Hearing hue and cry, Kishna and Mangla came there. Seeing them, the accused ran away. Kishna Ram and Mangla Ram took her back to her home. At the house, the grand-mother called her fathers elder brother Joga Ram and subsequently alongwith CW. 1 Prem Prakash Ex.D/1 report was lodged in the police station. 3. Formal FIR Ex.P/17 was chalked out and investigation commenced. PW. 8 Rakesh Puri got examined medically the prosecutrix PW. 4 Geeta by Dr. S.R. Choudhary (PW. 3), who has proved the medical examination report Ex.P/14. He did not find semen or blood-stains on the external genitals, pubic heir and thighs. No injury or sign of inflammation were found on the external genitals. The accused was also got medically examined. The accused was arrested through Ex.P/15. Site Plan Ex.P16 was prepared. 4. S.R. Choudhary (PW. 3), who has proved the medical examination report Ex.P/14. He did not find semen or blood-stains on the external genitals, pubic heir and thighs. No injury or sign of inflammation were found on the external genitals. The accused was also got medically examined. The accused was arrested through Ex.P/15. Site Plan Ex.P16 was prepared. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate, who committed the case for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur framed the charge under Section 376, IPC on 24.02.1987. Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced 8 witnesses and tendered 7 documents in evidence. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement under Section 313, CrPC the accused stated that Prem Prakash (CW. 1) is the uncle of prosecutrix and a false report has been foisted against him. However, accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The Court has also examined CW. 1 Prem Prakash. 6. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, acquitted the accused of the charge of rape under Section 376 by his Judgment and order dated 20.06.1987 in Sessions Case No. 61/86. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and order dated 20.06.1987 the State has filed the appeal. 7. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for respondent and also perused the material available on record. 8. It shall be proper to first see the principles which govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which have been set out in innumerable cases by the Honble Supreme Court. 9. In the case of Ajit Sawant Majagavi vs. State of Karnatka, AIR 1997 SC 3255 , the Honble Supreme Court laid the following principles: i. Inan appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. ii. The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. iii. ii. The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. iii. Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds not subscribed to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. .iv.In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court. .v. If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. vi. The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court, especially in the witness box. vii. The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such that a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. 10. In light of the above principles laid by Honble Supreme Court, I now proceed to examine the present matter. 11. In the present case, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charge of rape for the reason that there is a variance of material nature in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the version of the prosecutrix is not trustworthy and it is also doubtful as to where the first information was written so also on the basis of demeanour of the witnesses. 12. PW. 1 Dr. Ratanlal and PW. 2 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma have been examined by the prosecution regarding the age of the accused person. Therefore, there evidence is not of much help to connect the accused with the crime. PW. 12. PW. 1 Dr. Ratanlal and PW. 2 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma have been examined by the prosecution regarding the age of the accused person. Therefore, there evidence is not of much help to connect the accused with the crime. PW. 3 Dr. S.R. Choudhary has found that there was no injury on the external genitals and thighs of the prosecutrix. This witness further states that neither there was semen or blood stains nor any injury in the vagina canal. He has further found that Smt. Geeta was habitual of intercourse as she was married. This witness has stated that there was abrasion of 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the post aspect of the left elbow joint and duration of which was 6 to 12 hours. This witness has also stated that vagina swab was also taken of the prosecutrix which was dry and there was no smegma present of the male penis in the vagina. 13. PW. 4 is the prosecutrix. She has stated that while she was going to the well (field) of her father, at the outskirts of village accused came from behind and asked her to put down the meal she was taking for her father and the accused dragged her by catching hold of her left hand for about 40 steps. Thereafter, the accused pushed her down on the earth, removed her petticoat and also removed his dhoti and thereafter inserted his pennis into her vagina and for continuous five minutes the accused indulged in the act of intercourse and she continuously cried. She has further stated that Kishna Ram and Mangla Ram also came there at that time and on seeing them the accused ran away from there. She states that she told PW. 5 Kishna Ram and PW. 6 Mangla Ram that accused committed rape on her and the accused also discharged. She further stated that her cloths were also spoiled by the discharge of the accused. On this point, PW. 3 Dr. R.S. Choudhary has stated that at the time of examination, the prosecutrix was wearing same cloths which were worn by her at the time of incident and no semen or bloodstain was found on the clothes. Thus, the statement of the prosecutrix is falsified to the extent that semen was there on her clothes. 14. The statement of prosecutrix PW. R.S. Choudhary has stated that at the time of examination, the prosecutrix was wearing same cloths which were worn by her at the time of incident and no semen or bloodstain was found on the clothes. Thus, the statement of the prosecutrix is falsified to the extent that semen was there on her clothes. 14. The statement of prosecutrix PW. 4 regarding the place of incident is that when she was approaching towards the field of her father at the outskirts of the village, the pits were at the right hand side, the accused did not commit rape in those pits with her whereas the rape was committed after one thousand steps away from that place. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that accused did not drag her and took her into the pit but rape was committed on her on the way. Thus there is also variance regarding dragging by the accused as to whether the accused dragged her and took her upto the pits or not. In the examination-in-chief , prosecutrix stated that she was dragged whereas in the cross-examination she says that she was not dragged. The other witnesses regarding the site are PW. 5 Kishna Ram, PW. 6 Mangla Ram and PW. 8 Rakesh Puri, who has conducted investigation in the case. 15. PW. 6 Mangla Ram in his statement has stated that while he was going with Kishna Ram (PW. 5), he heard a human cry Chhudao and at that time they saw Nemla Ram, the accusd running from there and prosecutrix standing in a pit. They asked the prosecutrix as to what had happened whereupon she replied that she was subjected to rape. Thus, as per the statement of this witness, it appears that she was seen standing in a pit and the incident took place in a pit whereas in the earlier statement she has stated that no incident had taken place in the pits adjacent to the way. 16. PW. 8 Rakesh Puri in the cross examination has stated that it is correct to say that the place of incident as told by the prosecutrix was away from the pits. It shall also be relevant to notice here that the learned Sessions Judge has also inspected the site during the course of trial and an inspection note was prepared on 24.05.1987. It shall also be relevant to notice here that the learned Sessions Judge has also inspected the site during the course of trial and an inspection note was prepared on 24.05.1987. In this inspection note it has been mentioned that the place of incident was adjacent to the Kachha way while going towards the field of the father of the prosecutrix as per the prosecutrix. Thus, the place of incident as stated in the FIR is also different from one pointed out by the witness and there is also variance regarding the place of incident in the evidence of the prosecution. The prosecutrix has made a mention of the name of the accused in the first information report whereas in the cross examination she has stated that she saw the accused for the first time at the spot as PW . 5 Kishna Ram informed her about the name of the accused. She has also stated in the cross examination that when accused started running from the place of incident, at that time PW . 5 & PW . 6 were 40 steps away from that place and at that time accused was necked. Necked position of the accused has not been supported by PW. 5 & PW . 6. 17. There are other material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and again it is important to notice the actual place where the first information was got written and as to whether evidence of the prosecution indicates the probability of the accused being involved in the case. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has admitted that his uncle CW . 1 Prem Prakash is an Advocate, who took her in the office of Advocate Shambhoo Ram where they stayed for two hours. Thanedar was called there and her thumb impressions were obtained on 4-5 papers. When CW . 1 Prem Prakash was examined as a Court witness, he denied the above statement of prosecutrix completely and stated that she was telling a lie. 18. PW. 8 Rakesh Puri has also contradicted the statements of CW. 1 Prem Prakash. He has stated that Prem Prakash was not aware of the name of the person who committed rape on the prosecutrix. According to PW. 18. PW. 8 Rakesh Puri has also contradicted the statements of CW. 1 Prem Prakash. He has stated that Prem Prakash was not aware of the name of the person who committed rape on the prosecutrix. According to PW. 8, had it been intimated to him about the fact that accused was not known to Geeta earlier from before, he would have got conducted the identification parade. 19. The learned trial Court has also noted demeanour and it has been observed that the witnesses were not telling truth. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution acquitted the accused of the charge. 20. I have also carefully gone through the evidence led by the prosecution in this case. It is correct that the minor contradictions are not of much significance particularly in the cases where rape has been committed. But at the same time the evidence of the prosecutrix should be examined with care and caution to ascertain as to whether her statements are wroth reliance. 21. In the instant case, there are many jerks and jolts in the prosecution story. The genesis of the prosecution story is also doubtful from the very inception. The statement of the prosecutrix that while the rape was committed on her, during the course of intercourse accused discharged and her clothes were spoiled. She has also stated that she has not given the clothes to the police. No injury was found on the private parts of the prosecutrix. The place of incident where it has taken place is also doubtful. Where the report was actually written after deliberation is also doubtful. There is no sign of intercourse found on the person of the prosecutrix. These are all important aspects of the matter. 22. The learned trial Judge after considering the entire material available on record and discussing the evidence in its totality has acquitted the accused. The law is also almost settled on the point that in the matters where the orders of acquittal have been passed then in those matters even if two views are possible in relation to the innocence or involvement of accused in the crime, then the view which finds favour with the accused is required to be taken. 23. The law is also almost settled on the point that in the matters where the orders of acquittal have been passed then in those matters even if two views are possible in relation to the innocence or involvement of accused in the crime, then the view which finds favour with the accused is required to be taken. 23. In view of the discussed position of evidence and also taking into consideration the fact that accused has been acquitted of the charge of rape, in my humble view, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are not required to be interfered with. 24. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this State appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeal dismissed after confirming the Judgment and order dated 20.06.1987 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.61/1986 - State vs. Nemaram alias Nemla.