JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan filed appeal No. 683 of 2002 whereas the prosecutrix Smt. Savita filed Criminal revision No. 241 of 2001, against the judgment and order dated Feb. 1, 2001, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 88/99 (old No. 101 of 1999) whereby the accused respondent was acquitted from the offence under section 376 IPC. The appeal as well as the revision petition are decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on May 13, 1997 prosecutrix Savita Sankhla submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police Jhunjhunu stating that her Jeeja, Chiranjilal, called her by telephonic message from her in-laws house at Islampur to his school where he was teacher at Gram Gudda by saying that her sister was ill. On May 12, 1997 at 1.00 p.m. she reached the school at Gram Gudda by bus at which time the school hours were over. The accused took her inside the school building room and committed rape upon her against her wishes despite great resistence put by her. On screaming no one from the nearby houses came to save her. The incident was narrated by her to her parents and relatives. The Superintendent of Police sent the report to the Police Station Gudha where FIR No.94/97 was registered for the offence under section 376 IPC. The police investigated the matter and after completion of investigation filed challan under section 376 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate Udaipurwati wherefrom it was committed to the court of Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu, who transferred it to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu. The trial court framed charge for the offence under section 376 IPC against the accused respondent, but the accused respondent denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced 7 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents in support of its case. After hearing arguments the trial court acquitted the accused respondent of the charge under section 376 IPC vide judgment dated Feb. 1, 2001. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner Savita, argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondent for offence charged against him. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. 1, 2001. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner Savita, argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondent for offence charged against him. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. The judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondent should be convicted for the offence charged against him. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence (;that) came on record and produced by the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor, argued that the trial court has erred in not appreciating the evidence of prosecutrix Savita Sankhla PW.6 who stated in her evidence that rape was committed by the accused respondent on her in the school, where she has called her by giving telephonic message. On screaming no one from the nearby houses came to save her. The incident was narrated by her to her parents and relatives, but the trial court acquitted the accused. Ramniwas PW.3 Police Officer, who investigated the matter admitted in his cross-examination that he did not enquire into the matter from the School Headmaster nor conducted the investigation, as such it cannot be said that the incident did not take place, as such the findings of the trial court are perverse and liable to be set aside. The Public Prosecutor further argued that the trial court erred in not appreciating the citations produced by the prosecution in support of its theory that in such cases of rape without any strong evidence the accused can be punished even on sole evidence and the case can be said to be proved. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondent argued that the trial court correctly passed the order of acquittal after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution and the evidence produced by the accused respondent in defence.. The prosecutrix has not received any injury and the doctor in his statement stated that the time of examination of prosecutrix no: injury was found on her body. PW.7 Kumari Pooja, who was residing nearby school was declared hostile. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court gave a finding that no such rape was committed by the accused respondent. PW.7 Kumari Pooja, who was residing nearby school was declared hostile. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court gave a finding that no such rape was committed by the accused respondent. In defence the accused respondent tried to point out that only on account of giving lesson to the accused respondent, the: prosecutrix falsely implicated the accused respondent as per the wishes of her husband in the rape case. It is true that prior to marriage of prosecutrix her father filed a case against one Omprakash librarian for teasing her. The order of acquittal is just and proper and no interference is called for in appeal. The learned counsel for the accused respondent on the other hand : while opposing the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the, entire record. The trial court after discussing the statements of the witnesses and the medical report and other documents exhibited by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the offence of the provisions of sections 376 IPC against the accused respondent. There were contradictions and embellishments in the statement of the prosecutrix. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court rightly passed by the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused respondent. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 4 Court in Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : 2006(10) SCC 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference. The appeal as well as the revision petition being devoid of merit stand dismissed.Appeal and Revision Dismissed. *******