JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. The State of Tripura by filing this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC, in short) called in question the legality of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura in S.T. 42 (WT/S) of 2008. Sans unnecessary details, the essential facts may briefly be noted as under: On 02.05.2008 at 1335 hours, a written complaint from the prosecutrix (the name concealed) was received by the Sonamura Police Station and the Sonamura P.S. Case No. 65/08 was registered. It surfaced from the said complaint that while the prosecutrix had gone for collecting water from a ditch within a short distance from her house at Induria, the respondent arrived there and forcibly took her in a nearby jungle and thereafter, committed rape on her. Having alerted by delay, her sister, Jafia Khatun, reached the spot. No sooner, the respondent fled away when noticed her coming. Thereafter, they returned home. Their mother was in the hospital to attend their father who was admitted there. After her coming to the home, she was apprised of the occurrence. On the next date around 6.00 p.m., the respondent had called her to his house saying that he would marry her. She joined the respondent, but after a while, his mother Joyfulernesa and sister Pinkirnesa arrived there and seeing her, got extremely annoyed and started assaulting her and turned her out of the house. She lost her sense and when regained, she found herself in Kathalia Primary Health Centre (PHC). She was released from the hospital on 01.05.2008 and thereafter, she lodged the complaint on 02.05.2008. After the investigation was complete, a prima facie case having been made out, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the respondents and on taking cognizance of the said offence, the case was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura for trial and the Additional Sessions Judge on 21.01.2009 framed the charge against the respondent under Section 376(1) of the IPC and accused Joyfulernesa under Section 323 of the IPC to which both the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2. 2. The prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and admitted a few documents in the evidence to drive the charge home, but, the defence did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. They had denied the entire prosecution case as false. The Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence returned the finding that the charge of rape has not been proved against the respondent No. 1. Similarly, the charge as framed under Section 323 IPC had also fallen through for deficiency of the evidence and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order, both the respondents were acquitted from the said charge. 3. Aggrieved, the State of Tripura filed this present appeal against the said order of acquittal. 4. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P., appearing for the appellant contended that from the prosecutrix's statement as admitted in the evidence, it would be evident that the respondent No. 1 against her will committed rape. She deposed in the Court corroborating what she stated in the ejahar as well as, in the statement recorded under Section 164(5) of the CrPC. In the deposition, the prosecutrix (P.W. 3) stated that when she went to fetch water from the well at a short distance from their house, Siddik appeared there and took her to the nearby jungle and he applied force on her and committed rape. Her wearing apparels ganji and skirt were torn due to the resistance she offered. She raised cry. As there was delay in her return, her elder sister Jafia Khatun (P.W. 4) arrived there. The respondent No. 1 on seeing her coming to that spot fled away. She stated that when her mother returned from hospital to take food for her father, who was at that time, admitted at the Dhanpur PHC, she narrated the incident to her. On the following day, which was Tuesday, her father returned from the PHC and she narrated the incident. The day after, at around 6.00 p.m., the respondent No. 1 called her to his house saying that he would marry the prosecutrix. Accordingly, she accompanied him. Leaving her in the house, he left and immediately thereafter, his mother Joyfulernesa and sister Pinkirnesa assaulted her with blows and thereafter, she was turned out of the house. She identified the ejahar (Exbt. 1) and her apparels as Exbt. M.O. 1 in the Court. Accordingly, she accompanied him. Leaving her in the house, he left and immediately thereafter, his mother Joyfulernesa and sister Pinkirnesa assaulted her with blows and thereafter, she was turned out of the house. She identified the ejahar (Exbt. 1) and her apparels as Exbt. M.O. 1 in the Court. In the cross, however, she stated that she sustained no injury though she tried to resist the respondent No. 1 while he tried to rape her. She also stated that she had bleeding for penetration. She denied all other suggestions as made by the defence in the Court. The P.W. 4, her sister corroborated that when she arrived nearby the jungle, she found the respondent No. 1 running away from the spot and the prosecutrix crying. Having been asked she narrated that the respondent No. 1 forcibly took her to the jungle from the ditch and committed rape on her. She also corroborated the prosecutrix's statement that she narrated the entire incident to her mother on her return from the hospital. However, she stated that on the following day around 6.00 p.m., while she was going to Induria bazar, she heard the cries of the prosecutrix and found that she was being pushed onto the road by Joyfulernesa and Pinkirnesa. The prosecutrix at that time, told her that they had administered some medicine, but no such revelation can be had from the statement recorded under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C. which however was not admitted in the evidence. In the ejahar, however, she stated that Joyfulernesa brought a can of poison from their hut and asked her to consume the poison and on consumption of poison she became unconscious. But that was not proved by the prosecutrix. At the time of deposing, rather she stated she was assaulted by them. The P.W. 4, however, admitted that she saw Siddik's mother and sister pushing the prosecutrix towards the road. The mother of the prosecutrix deposed as the P.W. 2. She stated that prosecutrix narrated the incident that occurred on the previous day when she went to fetch water from the well. At that time, the respondent No. 1 forcibly took her to the nearby jungle and committed rape on her. Hearing this, she went to the Dhanpur PHC and informed the incident to her husband. She stated that prosecutrix narrated the incident that occurred on the previous day when she went to fetch water from the well. At that time, the respondent No. 1 forcibly took her to the nearby jungle and committed rape on her. Hearing this, she went to the Dhanpur PHC and informed the incident to her husband. The P.W. 1, Niyamat Ullah deposed that from the sister of the prosecutrix (P.W. 4), he came to know that the prosecutrix had consumed poison and she had to be shifted to Kathalia PHC. The P.W. 1 and others aided in shifting. At the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix was in her sense, but she did not utter a word. The P.W. 5, Md. Alek Hossen, the father of the prosecutrix, stated that in the hospital, she heard about the incident from his wife, the P.W. 2 that the prosecutrix when went to fetch water from the ditch within the short distance from their house, the respondent No. 1 committed rape on her. On the following evening around 6.00 p.m., on being released, he heard the incident again from the prosecutrix and Jafia Khatun (PW 4). On the next morning, he went to the house of Harun Miah, father of the Siddik Miah and informed the matter. Harun Miah and her wife Joyfulernesa abused him. Thereafter, her daughter filed the case. She confirmed that in his presence, wearing apparels of the prosecutrix (Exbt. M.O. 1 series) was seized and he identified his signature on the seizure list. One Advocate's clerk namely, Sri Tapan Chakraborty deposed as the P.W. 6 and admitted that he scribed the ejahar (Exbt. 1). The P.W. 7, one Sri Jyotish Debbarma, did not depose anything of material importance. The investigating officer namely, Rajib Saha, deposed as the P.W. 8 and stated how he conducted the investigation. He stated that he had sent the prosecutrix to the Sonamura hospital for her medical examination and seized her wearing apparels. Thereafter, on 07.07.2008, he received the medical report of the victim and filed the charge sheet on 23.07.2008. He confirmed that he did not examine Dr. Prasenjit Dhar of Kathalia PHC, where the victim was admitted on 30.04.2008 to ascertain whether she made any disclosure to the doctor about the alleged rape. 5. Thereafter, on 07.07.2008, he received the medical report of the victim and filed the charge sheet on 23.07.2008. He confirmed that he did not examine Dr. Prasenjit Dhar of Kathalia PHC, where the victim was admitted on 30.04.2008 to ascertain whether she made any disclosure to the doctor about the alleged rape. 5. On appreciation of the evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge could not believe the version of the prosecutrix as gospel truth. The Medical Examination Report (Exbt. 4) did not support the contention of the prosecutrix that she had bleeding injuries for the rape. In the Medical Examination Report (Exbt. 3), it is categorically observed that there is no injury in the private part of the body even though the hymen was ruptured. The rupture was not a fresh one. No laceration, bruise or abrasion of the vaginal wall even though the Forensic report (Exbt. A) categorically excluded presence of seminal stain, spermatozoa in the vaginal swab of the victim, which was collected and seized and thereafter, sent for examination by the State Forensic Science Laboratory. Moreover, from the Medical Report (Exbt. 7), the doctor namely, Dr. Prasenjit Dhar categorically observed that 'in my opinion, it was suicidal in nature'. It is therefore, clear that the prosecutrix herself consumed the poison and accordingly, she stated to the doctor, but later on implicated the respondent No. 2 and her daughter for administering poison on her. 6. Apart that, Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel pointed out some inherent and vital contradictions surfacing from the conjoint reading of the deposition of PW 2, 3, 4 and 5. The P.W. 5, the father, stated that on the following day of the occurrence, he was released from the hospital and on that evening, he was stated by the prosecutrix about the incident, but since he was not feeling well, she went to the house of Harun Miah, father of the respondent No. 1 in the next morning. But, both the PW 3 and 4 categorically stated that on the identical time, the prosecutrix was called by the respondent No. 1 to join him in their house and accordingly, she went there and was mercilessly assaulted or allegedly administered poison. The prosecution has not furnished any explanation for the said contradiction. The incident occurred on 28.04.2008. But, both the PW 3 and 4 categorically stated that on the identical time, the prosecutrix was called by the respondent No. 1 to join him in their house and accordingly, she went there and was mercilessly assaulted or allegedly administered poison. The prosecution has not furnished any explanation for the said contradiction. The incident occurred on 28.04.2008. As per the statement of the P.W. 5, it can be assumed that he was released on 29.04.2008 from the hospital and on 30.04.2008, he went to the house of the respondent No. 1 in the morning. A part of the deposition is reproduced hereunder: Apart of the deposition of P.W. 5: On the 15th day in the evening my wife went to the hospital and informed me that on that day around 11 am my daughter Bakul went to fetch water from a ditch about 10 kani away from my house; when Siddik Miah committed rape on her. Following evening around 6 pm on being released I returned home and learnt about the incident from Bakul and Jafia. As I was not feeling well on the next morning I went to Harun Miah; father of Siddik Miah and informed the matter. Hearing this he and his wife abused me. Thereafter my daughter filed the case. 7. The PW 4, Jafia Khatun stated that on the 15th day of last Baisakh at about 11 am her younger sister when went to fetch water from a ditch, she was raped by the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, she narrated as under: The following day around 6 pm as I was going to the Induria bazar I heard the cries of Bakul. As I came near the house of Siddik Miah I found that she was being pushed on the road by Joyfulernesa and Pinkirnesa. Bakul told me that they had administered her medicine. She was taken to the hospital. 8. The following day as underlined by the P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 must be 29.04.2008. Similarly, the prosecutrix stated as under: On the 15th day of last Baisakh around 11 am I went to fetch water from the well at a distance of 10 kani field from our house. At that time Siddik Miah appeared there and took me to the nearby jungle and he applied force on me and thereafter committed rape on me. Similarly, the prosecutrix stated as under: On the 15th day of last Baisakh around 11 am I went to fetch water from the well at a distance of 10 kani field from our house. At that time Siddik Miah appeared there and took me to the nearby jungle and he applied force on me and thereafter committed rape on me. My wearing appeals i.e. ganji and skirt were torn due to resistance. I raised cries. As there was delay in my return my elder sister Jafia Khatun arrived there. Seeing her Siddik Miah fled away. Thereafter we returned home. After some time, my mother returned from hospital to take food for my father who was admitted at Dhanpur PHC. I narrated the incident to her. After some time in the evening my mother went to the Dhanpur PHC. On the following day which was a Tuesday my father returned from PHC and I narrated the incident to him. The following day around 6 pm Siddik called me to his house saying that he would marry me. Accordingly I accompanied him. Leaving me there he left the house. Seeing me there Joyfulernesa and Pinkirnesa assaulted me with blows. Thereafter they turned me out of the house and I was taken to the Kathalia PHC. Therefore, according to the prosecutrix, she was admitted in the hospital after assault, on the same following day i.e. on 29.04.2012. 9. The P.W. 2, however, was completely silent over that part of the episode. But from Exbt. 7, it appears that the prosecutrix was hospitalized on 30.04.2008 at 8.45 p.m. and was discharged from the hospital on 01.05.2008. Even this fact got corroboration from the P.W. 1, who categorically stated on 30.04.2008 at about 6.00 p.m., he saw the prosecutrix was being taken to the hospital and he also aided her. Only independent witness is the P.W. 1, but he did not state anything regarding the rape rather supported the content as available in the Exbt. 7 that he was told by the P.W. 4 that the prosecutrix had consumed poison. The Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix as the medical evidence completely debased her version and so far the charge against the respondent No. 2 is concerned there is no believable evidence at all, for the said vital contradiction as pointed out. 10. Mr. The Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix as the medical evidence completely debased her version and so far the charge against the respondent No. 2 is concerned there is no believable evidence at all, for the said vital contradiction as pointed out. 10. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional PP, appearing for the State submitted that there was no impediment or legal embargo to believe the prosecutrix version. The law is now well crystallized that the prosecutrix version unless visited by the sheer falsity can confidently be relied upon by the Court. The Court is therefore within its jurisdiction to call for corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix. No doubt, some corroboration in the present case is available, but not on material points. In the case in hand, Siddik was found on the alleged spot of the occurrence, but, there is no direct evidence except the version of the prosecutrix to establish the charge of rape punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge found that the version of the prosecutrix did not get support from the medical examination report. There was no infirmity in his finding when he held that the prosecutrix's version cannot be entirely believed in this case so far the allegation of rape is concerned. In this regard, a decision of the Apex Court as rendered in Rajoo & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. as reported in AIR 2009 SC 858 may be referred. In Rajoo (supra), the Apex Court held as under: 9. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspect and should be believed, the more so as her statement has to be evaluated at par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the Court, It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. Reference has been made in Gurmit Singh's case to the amendments in 1983 to Sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code making the penal provisions relating to rape more stringent, and also to Section 114A of the Evidence Act with respect to a presumption to be raised with regard to allegations of consensual sex in a case of alleged rape. It is, however, significant that Sections 113A and 113B too were inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by which certain presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide and dowry death have been raised against the accused. These two section, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour of the prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to rape is visualized as the presumption under Section 114A is extremely restricted in its applicability. This clearly shows that insofar as allegations of rape are concerned, the evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel truth. Additionally her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely We believe that it is under these principles that this case, and others such as this one, need to be examined. 11. As such, when Mr. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P., appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment is perverse, this Court cannot accept such contention. It is further required to be underlined that for purpose of an appeal against the order of acquittal, the burden is heavier on the appellant. The Apex Court in Awadhesh & Anr. Vs. 11. As such, when Mr. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P., appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment is perverse, this Court cannot accept such contention. It is further required to be underlined that for purpose of an appeal against the order of acquittal, the burden is heavier on the appellant. The Apex Court in Awadhesh & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in (1988) 2 SCC 557 has enunciated the law as under: While considering an appeal against acquittal the High Court must keep in mind these principles in appreciating the evidence of witnesses. If on appraisal of the evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible, one as held by the trial Court for acquitting the accused, and the other for convicting the accused in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial Court. Unless the conclusions of the trial Court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. The High Court has in the instant case made an attempt to explain away the infirmities in the testimony of eye-witnesses in setting aside the order of acquittal. The High Court has in our opinion disregarded the rule of judicial prudence in converting the order of acquittal to conviction. 12. This Court has made a fresh scrutiny of the evidence to ascertain whether the Additional Sessions Judge has committed any perversity or unreasonableness while arrived at the finding, which is under challenge in this appeal But, it has been demonstrated by the analysis that there is no such perversity or unreasonableness and as such, it cannot be stated that the impugned judgment and order has been rendered unsustainable in the eye of law. Moreover, the evidence as recorded by the trial Court is consistent with the finding. 13. This Court has noticed the deposition of the main prosecution witnesses with an object to reassess whether the view of the Additional Sessions Judge can be said to be perverse or the same view is an improbability. While dealing with a case of acquittal, the parameter that acquired a status of a universal rule lays that ordinarily the High Court shall not overturn a judgment where two views are possible. While dealing with a case of acquittal, the parameter that acquired a status of a universal rule lays that ordinarily the High Court shall not overturn a judgment where two views are possible. The appellant has to irresistibly demonstrate that the prosecution has proved the charge of rape without reasonable doubt and on excluding any other possible view. From the discussion as made herein, it surfaced that the prosecution case collapsed in the midway. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge are fully justified and there is no reason to hold that decision is patently wrong and perverse. 14. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Appeal dismissed