JUDMENT Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. A. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents. The appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.8.1993 passed by Sri Sita Ram Pandey, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Santhal Praganas, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1993. Both the respondents were charged under Section 363 and under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and respondent No. 1 was further charged under Section 376 I.P.C. for committing rape upon the victim girl, namely Kulwati Devi. The learned trial court, from the evidences adduced, has not appreciated to convict the respondents, and accordingly, acquitted them. The prosecution case was started on the basis of the Fardbayan given by the informant, P.W.-12, Madhusudan Rai, father of the victim girl on 28.8.1992 at 15:00 hrs. stating therein that his daughter Kulwanti Devi, aged about 15 years, along with her brother Sanichar Rai, aged about 5 years, left the house on 13.8.1992 at 5:00 a.m. in the mourning and after that he has got no information about them. He searched for the girl and the boy at the relatives’ house. He stated that her daughter has got illicit relation with the accused Sheo Charan Turi, who resides in the village of the house of R. Turi (who is his Mausa). He has stated that the friend of Sheo Charan Turi, namely Nakul Rai has also gone with him. In the Fardbayan, he stated that his daughter was married and after marriage since last five months she is residing in the village. The informant stated that Sheo Charan Turi and Nakul Rai both are absent from their house right from the day his daughter left the house. He has stated that Sheo Charan Turi has kidnapped his daughter for the purpose of marrying her and kept her in secret place. He has stated about the occurrence to the villagers namely Srawan Rai, Lalit Rai, Maneshwar Rai, Sahdeo Rai, Budhan Rai. On the basis of the said Fardbayan, police registered a case under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. and subsequently when the girl was recovered and examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., section 376 I.P.C. was also added, and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections. After cognizance, the case was committed to the sessions, since the case was triable exclusively by the Sessions court. After cognizance, the case was committed to the sessions, since the case was triable exclusively by the Sessions court. It appears that in course of trial, prosecution has examined 13 PWs. P.W.-1 is doctor, Pushplata Tudu, who examined the victim girl on 29.8.1992 and after X-ray and other examination, she ascertained the age of the victim girl between 16-17 years. She found no mark of injury on the body of the victim girl. Her hymen had old rupture and she was used to sexual intercourse. No sperm was found in her vaginal swat and the doctor opined that no opinion with regard to rape could be given. P.W.-2, is the victim girl, Kulwati Devi. She has stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e. Thrusday at 10:00 a.m., when she was standing with her brother Sanichar Rai then, Sheo Charan Turi by force took her to Guhiajori. She was not prepared to go there. At the point of dagger he threatened her. She has stated that her brother is aged about 7 years. From Guhiajori, he took her on a cycle to Kathikund and kept her in the house of Manjhi Babu, where she stayed for 5 days, and on all the 5 days he committed rape upon her in the house of Manjhi Babu. She stated that Nakul was also there, but he never committed any rape upon her. After keeping for 5 days in Kathikund, Sheo Charan took her to village Jamuni and kept her in jungle for 5 days, where also he committed rape upon her. From Jamuni, she was taken to Amtalla, in jungle, there also she was raped by the accused Sheo Charan for 5 days. Thereafter he brought her to the house of her mama at Makro. She told about the occurrence to her elder brother and Bhabhi. Subsequently, her mother and father came to Makro in search of her, then she went with them to the Police Station, from where she was sent to the doctor at Dumka. She identified both the accused in court. She was cross-examined at length and in her cross examination, she stated at Para 2 that she was not knowing the accused Sheo Charan from before, since he was not a resident of her village, but presently he was residing in his mausa’s house, but she does not know the name of his mausa and mausi. She was cross-examined at length and in her cross examination, she stated at Para 2 that she was not knowing the accused Sheo Charan from before, since he was not a resident of her village, but presently he was residing in his mausa’s house, but she does not know the name of his mausa and mausi. There were 25 houses in her village and the house of the Sheo Charan’s mausa is after two houses from her house. In her cross examination, at Para 3, she has stated that when Sheo Charan took her by force, at that time, she was standing at the bus stand, and she also stated that east to the Kathikund bus stand, there is a Hatia and the entire Kathikund village is around the Hatia. She also stated in her cross examination that in the jungle for 5 days in Jamuni, no food was given to her by the accused and at Amtalla, where she was kept for 5 days, there also no food was given to her. Thereafter, she was sent to Makro to her mama’s house and the accused left. For all these days, she has stated that she was wearing the same cloth and she changed the cloth after the case was registered in the Police Station. She had shown the cloth to the Officer Incharge, but it was not seized by him. P.W.-3 is Bibia Devi, mother of the victim girl. She stated that on the date of occurrence, which was in the last Sawan month, on Thrusday, her daughter Kulwati and son Sanichar had been sent to her own house at Makro. After 3 days, she went to Makro but, her daughter was not present there, then she searched for her daughter, and after 9 days, she got her daughter at Makro, and told her that she was kidnapped by Sheo Charan, and the accused Sheo Charan committed rape upon her. She brought the girl to the Police Station where the case was registered and she was examined by a doctor. She identified both the accused in Court. In her cross examination, she stated that she has not gone to the bus stand along with her daughter and son. P.W.-4, Maneshwar Rai, he is independent witness. He was tendered for cross-examination and has given no statement. She identified both the accused in Court. In her cross examination, she stated that she has not gone to the bus stand along with her daughter and son. P.W.-4, Maneshwar Rai, he is independent witness. He was tendered for cross-examination and has given no statement. But in his cross examination, he has stated that there are shops behind Kathikund bus stand, and behind the shop, there is a Police Station also. P.W.-5, Lalit Rai, was also tendered for cross examination and in his cross examination, he has stated that he is uncle of Kulwati Devi. P.W.-6, Sanichar Rai, is the brother, who accompanied the victim girl throughout, has also been tendered and nothing has been asked. P.W.-7, Srawan Rai, is co-villager and has only stated that he has heard in the last year sawan that Sheo Charan ran away with Kulwati Devi and returned to village after 15 days. He had no talk with Kulwati Devi. P.W.-8,Budhan Rai, is also a co-villager and he has stated that he heard that Sheo Charan eloped with Kulwati Devi and she returned after 15 days. He also heard that Sheo Charan raped upon her for 15 days. P.W.-9, is Sahdeo Rai, was also tendered. P.W.-10, is Rebni Devi, she stated that she stayed in the house of the mama of the victim girl and she stated that on the last year sawan, Kulwati’s mother and father came in search of Kulwati, but she was not present in the house, then her parents went away and after sometime Kulwati Devi and her younger brother came to her house but, Kulwati Devi told nothing to her, thereafter, her parents came and she went with them. P.W.-11, is Anand Rai. He was tendered for cross examination, and has stated nothing. P.W.-12, the informant, father of the victim girl, he has stated that in the last sawan on Thrusday, his daughter, Kulwati Devi, along with her brother Sanichar was going to her mama’s house. She was going to celebrate Karma festival at her mama’s house. The very next day, he went to her mama’s house for bringing her but she was not present there. Then he came back to his village and started searching for her and then he went to the Police Station. The Officer Incharge of the Police Station asked him to search for his daughter. The very next day, he went to her mama’s house for bringing her but she was not present there. Then he came back to his village and started searching for her and then he went to the Police Station. The Officer Incharge of the Police Station asked him to search for his daughter. He searched for her, but got no clue about her, then his statement was recorded at the Police Station. He identified his statement in the Fardbayan. He has stated that after 8-10 days, his daughter told him that Sheo Charan kidnapped her and committed rape upon her. He identified the accused in court. In his cross examination, he has stated that he has not stated before the I.O. that Sheo Charan Turi has got illicit relation with his daughter. P.W.-13, I.O., Mahendra Prasad Gupta, he has proved the Fardbayan and also the formal F.I.R. He has also proved the fact that the girl was sent to the doctor for medical examination and after getting the medical report and supervision from the higher authority, he submitted the charge sheet. In his cross examination, he has stated that he examined none of the witnesses either at village Jamuni or village Amtalla nor he examined any body from the house of the victim’s mama at village Makro. Then, after going through the entire evidences as adduced by the prosecution, I find that the prosecution, in order to prove the charges, has examined mainly P.W.-2, the victim girl, Kulwati Devi, P.W-3, Bibia Devi, mother of the victim girl, P.W.-10, Rebni Devi from her mama’s house, and her father, the informant, P.W-12. All other witnesses, as discussed above, are either tendered or hear-say witnesses, and they are not relevant to prove the case of the prosecution. As discussed above, I find that the informant, P.W.-12, who gave the Fardbayan stated before the I.O. that Sheo Charan Turi, the accused, had illicit relation with his daughter Kulwati Devi and he suspects that he has taken away his daughter for the purpose of marriage along with his friend. When he was examined in court as P.W.-12, he clearly denied that he stated before the Daroga that Sheo Charan had illicit relation with his daughter. He also admitted that in the F.I.R. he never stated that his daughter along with her brother Sanichar has left his house for her mama’s house. When he was examined in court as P.W.-12, he clearly denied that he stated before the Daroga that Sheo Charan had illicit relation with his daughter. He also admitted that in the F.I.R. he never stated that his daughter along with her brother Sanichar has left his house for her mama’s house. According to him he came to know about kidnapping or rape of his daughter from Kulwati, P.W.-2, Kulwati Devi, stated in her examination in court that she was taken by force from the bus stand, but in her cross examination, she admitted that there are market and shops near the bus stand from where Sheo Charan is alleged to have taken her by force. None of the witnesses from the shop or market were examined either by the prosecution or even by the I.O. The victim girl has stated that for continuously 5 days in the house of Manjhi Babu at Kathikund she was raped by the accused, Sheo Charan Turi. Thereafter, 5 days in the jungle she was raped in village Jamuni, thereafter, for 5 days she was raped in the jungle of village Amtalla. But, no sign of rape was found by the doctor P.W. -1 nor any external injuries were found in her person. It also appears from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. that she was known to the accused from before. The accused wanted to marry her. She has stated that she refused to marry him because she was married, but now, since her husband has also known to the fact that she stayed with the accused Sheo Charan Turi, now she is also ready to marry him. Thus, from the evidences, I also find that the case of rape or kidnapping by the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It appears that the victim girl who was known to the accused from before accompanied her and after staying here and there for 15 days she came to the house of her mama. In her examination, she has stated that she has stated about the fact at her mama’s house to her brother and bhabhi. It appears that the victim girl who was known to the accused from before accompanied her and after staying here and there for 15 days she came to the house of her mama. In her examination, she has stated that she has stated about the fact at her mama’s house to her brother and bhabhi. But, P.W.-10, Rebni Devi, who is the only witness, examined from the mama’s house has very clearly stated that when victim Kulwati Devi came to her house along with her brother Sanichar Rai, she stated nothing which create doubt in the prosecution case and supports the fact that she accompanied the accused out of her own will and that is why she stated nothing at her mama’s house and silently came with parents to her house, whereafter this case was lodged. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal when two views are possible and the trial court has acquitted the accused, the High Court would not interfere with such order of acquittal. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the settled principle in a case reported in 2008 1 J.L.J.R. page 244 (Supreme Court) in the case of Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur & Daya Singh Lahoriya @ Rajeev Sudan @ Vinay Kumar Vrs. State of Rajasthan. At paragraph 69 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon a previous decision of the Hon’ble Court in case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, reported in J.T. 2007 (3) S.C. 316, gave a finding that – “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 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. Firstly, the presumption of innocence 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.” In the instant case also I find that the view taken by the trial court is the only view possible and in the facts and circumstances of the case since the prosecution case which is based only on the statement of the victim girl, Kulwati Devi, is full of doubts and no independent witnesses either from her mama’s house or any other independent witness has stated the fact that she was forcibly kidnapped by the respondents, no sign of rape was found by the doctor nor any injuries were found and her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. also tend to support the view that she wanted to marry the accused Sheo Charan, and Sheo Charan also wanted to marry her and with consent they had left the village, accordingly, view taken by the trial court is the only possible view. As discussed above, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, without any costs.