JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J.: - Applicant has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated November 8, 2011, acquitting respondents No. 2 and 3 of the charges framed against them. Against the above respondents, FIR No. 96 was registered on July 6, 2010, for commission of offences under Sections 363 and 376(2)(g) IPC in Police Station Chhansa. 2. The process of law was initiated on an application Ex. PH made by the prosecutrix on July 6, 2010, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PH/1 was registered. 3. The trial Judge has noticed following facts regarding case of the prosecution: “The brief facts giving rise to this prosecution are that on 6.7.2010 the prosecutrix moved application Ex. PH before the police mentioning therein that she is a house wife. On 5.7.2010, at about 4 p.m., she had come to Mohna Hospital for taking medicine but she could not get medicine. When she came out of the hospital, she found Baldev and Trilok (both accused) present there on their motor-cycle at some distance. Trilok offered her a lift saying that he will drop her in the village as they were also going to the village. Thereupon she boarded the motor-cycle. She was taken to big canal and was raped by them turn by turn on the pavement. Thereafter she was left across the Yamuna river. Baldev and Trilok have committed rape upon her after taking from Mohna.” 4. On receipt of application Ex. PH, SI Narender Singh (PW10) sent the prosecutrix for medico legal examination, which was conducted by Dr. Poonam Sharma (PW1). He also went to the place of occurrence on July 7, 2010, got prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were arrested on July 19, 2010. Motor-cycle used in the commission of the offence was taken in possession against a recovery memo. They were medico legally examined by Dr. Gajraj Singh (PW8). The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and after completing other formalities, presented the final report in Court. Copies of the documents were supplied to respondents No. 2 and 3 as per norms. Case was sent to the competent Court for trial vide order dated August 30, 2010. 5. They were medico legally examined by Dr. Gajraj Singh (PW8). The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and after completing other formalities, presented the final report in Court. Copies of the documents were supplied to respondents No. 2 and 3 as per norms. Case was sent to the competent Court for trial vide order dated August 30, 2010. 5. On September 10, 2010, respondents No. 2 and 3- accused were charge-sheeted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced ten witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. It was further stated by them that the story projected in the FIR was wrong and false. In fact the prosecutrix was habitual of lodging false complaints and extracting money from the innocent persons under threat of a false case. Earlier also she lodged a false FIR No.221 dated 17.9.2008 at Police Station Chandhat under Sections 342/376/34 IPC against Satnam, Kulwant and others and after extracting money from them, the case was got cancelled. In some other cases, the prosecutrix and her daughter have extracted money from many people by blackmailing them under threat of involvement in a false criminal case. They also led evidence in defence. 6. The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence found case of the prosecution doubtful and accordingly the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them. 7. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the Court below has not read the evidence in its correct perspective and by doing that it has committed an error in law, which needs to be rectified by this Court. He further argued that the material evidence has been ignored unnecessarily. He prayed that the application be allowed and leave to file appeal against impugned judgment be granted. 8. After hearing counsel for the applicant, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment under challenge at the instance of the applicant. It was rightly noted by the trial Judge that there is no corroboration to the statement made by the prosecutrix. In her statement, there are large number of improbabilities and the circumstances which render her testimony untrustworthy. It was rightly noted by the trial Judge that there is no corroboration to the statement made by the prosecutrix. In her statement, there are large number of improbabilities and the circumstances which render her testimony untrustworthy. To remove doubts, no independent witness was produced in Court. It was also noted that the occurrence alleged to have taken place on July 5, 2010, at 4 PM, however, the matter was reported to the police only on July 6, 2010, at 7.15 PM. Explanation to cover the above delay was rightly rejected by the trial Judge by giving reasoning in paragraph No. 22 of the impugned judgment. 9. The Court below has also rightly noted that there is nothing on record to prove that the prosecutrix has gone to Mohna Hospital at 4 PM on July 5, 2010. No evidence to corroborate above statement was brought on record. As per case of the prosecutrix, she was taken on a motor-cycle across the Yamuna river and rape was committed upon her on pavement of the river, in day light, at 4 PM. Above version was rightly not believed by the trial Court. Specific reasons have been given in paragraphs No. 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment in that regard. It was further noted by the trial Court that the place where offence is alleged to have been committed is a busy place and as per admission of the Investigating Officer, people were passing through that way. It was also noted that there is no explanation as to why the prosecutrix failed to resist attempt of the respondents to commit rape and why hue and cry was not raised to save herself. The clothes of the prosecutrix were not torn. No injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of medico legal examination. To discard case of the prosecution, by noting as above, the trial Court has given sufficient reasons in paragraphs No. 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment under challenge. It is case of the prosecution that after commission of rape, the prosecutrix again took a ride on a motor-cycle with the respondents and she was left across the Yamuna river by them. Above fact was also rightly taken against the prosecutrix. 10. It is case of the prosecution that after commission of rape, the prosecutrix again took a ride on a motor-cycle with the respondents and she was left across the Yamuna river by them. Above fact was also rightly taken against the prosecutrix. 10. In defence, it has also come on record that at an earlier point of time, a false case was got registered by the prosecutrix against somebody else and thereafter it was cancelled on an affidavit filed by her. Report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory also does not promote case of the prosecution. Findings given by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence on record. 11. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” 13. Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, [2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 1409] : (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2941] : (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court. 14. In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, [2011(6) Law Herald (SC) 4149] : 2011(9) SCC 479, decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: “An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.” 15. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 751] : (2012) 1 SCC 602, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal. 8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for.” 16. Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:- “10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:- “10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience.” 17. Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence on record by the trial Court. No case is made out for interference. 18. Consequently, the application fails and the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------