Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) Heard learned Advocate for the appellant, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and learned APP for the State. 2. This appeal is directed by the appellant-original complainant against the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.241 of 2011. By the said Judgment & Order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted respondent No.1 -original accused of the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:- (a) The complainant Usha along with her husband and children resided at Village Sapatane (Bhose). The house of the respondent-accused was situated in front of her house. The complainant i.e the prosecutrix and her family members were doing labour work at brick kiln of the respondent. PW 3 Chandrakant, the husband of the prosecutrix, had taken a loan of Rs. 90,000/- from respondent-accused, however, it is the case of the prosecution and PW 3 Chandrakant that the said loan had been repaid about one and half month prior to filing of the FIR. (b) The incident is stated to have occurred on 23.07.2011 at about 10.00 a.m. PW 3 Chandrakant, the husband of the prosecutrix, had gone out of the house. Her daughters had gone to the school. Bablu, the minor son of the prosecutrix came to her and demanded Rs. 50/-. She told Bablu to get permission from his father to pay Rs. 50/-, hence, Bablu went to her husband i.e PW 3 Chandrakant. PW 3 Chandrakant gave permission to give Rs. 50/-to Bablu. Meanwhile, the prosecutrix started to wash clothes in the bathroom. At about 10.30 a.m., the respondent-accused came near her, he caught hold of her shoulder and carried her in a house which is by the side of her house. The respondent-accused then kept his hand on her mouth and committed rape on her. At that time, PW 3 Chandrakant, the husband of the prosecutrix, came to the house and loudly called out to her. The prosecutrix then rescued herself from the clutches of the respondent-accused and came out of the house. PW 3 Chandrakant went inside the said house. He saw the respondent - accused. On seeing PW 3 Chandrakant, the respondent-accused ran away. The husband of the prosecutrix took her to Modnimb. The prosecutrix then rescued herself from the clutches of the respondent-accused and came out of the house. PW 3 Chandrakant went inside the said house. He saw the respondent - accused. On seeing PW 3 Chandrakant, the respondent-accused ran away. The husband of the prosecutrix took her to Modnimb. There the matter was discussed between the prosecutrix and her husband and other relatives and the prosecutrix filed the FIR against the respondent-accused the next day night. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant-original complainant and learned APP for the State. We have perused the copies of the deposition of the witnesses which have been furnished by the learned Advocate for the appellant. After carefully considering the same, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal:- 5. In all, the prosecution has examined six witnesses i.e PW 1 Nanasaheb Ubale is the witness to spot panchnama, PW 2 Prashant Deshmane is the witness to seizure of clothes of the prosecutrix and the respondent-accused, PW 3 Chandrakant is the husband of the prosecutrix, PW 4 Dr. Pradeepkumar is the medical officer who examined the prosecutrix, PW 5 is the complainant-prosecutrix and PW 6 API Ramchandra is the I.O. 6. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent-accused committed rape on the prosecutrix. In such case, it is for the prosecution to prove that the respondent had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will; Without her consent; With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by force or fraud or by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. At the outset, it may be stated that the evidence of PW 4 Dr. Pradeep kumar, who has medically examined the prosecutrix, is totally silent on the point of sexual assault upon the prosecutrix. During the spot panchnama, no article of incriminating nature was seized. The C.A. report (Exh. 20) shows that neither blood nor semen was detected upon the underwear of the accused or the petticoat of the prosecutrix which were seized during the investigation. In such case, the prosecution would only have to rely upon the evidence of the prosecutrix and the evidence of her husband PW 3 Chandrakant. 7. The C.A. report (Exh. 20) shows that neither blood nor semen was detected upon the underwear of the accused or the petticoat of the prosecutrix which were seized during the investigation. In such case, the prosecution would only have to rely upon the evidence of the prosecutrix and the evidence of her husband PW 3 Chandrakant. 7. PW 5 Usha, the prosecutrix has stated that when she was washing clothes on 23.07.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., her son Bablu demanded Rs. 50/- from her. She asked him to get permission from his father i.e PW 3 Chandrakant, hence, Bablu went towards his father. At that time, the respondent-accused came there, he caught hold of her right arm and dragged her into a room near her house and committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The prosecutrix has stated that the respondent-accused had kept his hand upon her mouth, hence, she could not shout. The prosecutrix has further stated that her husband came and called out to her. After hearing the voice of her husband, the respondent-accused left her and ran away from the spot. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has admitted that in front of her house, there is one 'Samaj Mandir' and there are 5-6 houses next to her house. In such case, it appears rather unbelievable that the appellant went to the house of the prosecutrix, dragged her forcibly out of her house to another house nearby and thereafter, committed rape on her. It is to be noted that the incident has occurred in broad daylight i.e at 10.30 a.m. When according to the prosecutrix, she was dragged from her house to adjoining house, she has not shouted for help nor has she resisted the respondent-accused. The fact that no injuries were seen on the person of the prosecutrix also shows that she did not put any resistance when the respondent-accused dragged her or had sexual intercourse with her. At 10.30 a.m., a number of persons would be there in 'Samaj Mandir' and as 5-6 houses were next to the house of the prosecutrix, there would be people in the houses who would see the respondent-accused dragging the prosecutrix to adjoining house and they would have come to the help of the prosecutrix, had it really been a case of the respondent-accused forcibly dragging the prosecutrix from her house to another house. 8. 8. The prosecution has also examined PW 3 Chandrakant who is the husband of the prosecutrix. He has stated that the house of the respondent-accused was situated in front of his house. He had obtained Rs. 90,000/- as advance from the respondent-accused as he and his family members were doing labour work in the brick kiln of the respondent-accused. PW 3 Chandrakant has deposed that he had paid back the amount of Rs. 90,000/-and thereafter, he left the brick kiln of the respondent-accused and he and his family members started to work elsewhere. PW 3 Chandrakant has stated that on the day of the incident, his son Bablu had demanded an amount of Rs. 50/-from his wife. He gave permission to give the said amount to Bablu. Chandrakant then went to his house to see why his wife was delaying in paying the amount to their son. When PW 3 Chandrakant came home, at that time, he found his wife was not in the house, therefore, he loudly called out to his wife. After hearing his shout, his wife came from a room which is by the side of his house. According to him, his wife never used to go in that room, therefore, he felt suspicious, hence, he went in the room and found that the respondent-accused was in that room. The respondent-accused ran way on seeing PW 3 Chandrakant. Thereafter, PW 3 Chandrakant came back to his house and inquired with his wife why she had gone in that room whereupon his wife told him that the respondent-accused had come home, caught her arm and took her in the said room. He then committed rape upon her. It is only when PW 3 Chandrakant inquired with the prosecutrix why she had gone in that room as she never used to go in that room, that his wife told him that the respondent forcibly took her in that room and committed rape on her. It is pertinent to note that the prosecutrix did not immediately tell her husband that the appellant committed rape on her but she said so only after her husband questioned her why she gone into the room. 9. The evidence of PW 3 Chandrakant, the evidence of the prosecutrix and other evidence on record shows that assuming that sexual intercourse took place, in fact, it is a case of consensual sexual intercourse. 9. The evidence of PW 3 Chandrakant, the evidence of the prosecutrix and other evidence on record shows that assuming that sexual intercourse took place, in fact, it is a case of consensual sexual intercourse. We do not find the evidence of the prosecutrix to be trustworthy, credible and her evidence does not inspire confidence. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view of acquittal taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and plausible view. 10. The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different possible view may arise from the evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Anthony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. 11. We may also make useful reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Dinesh 2009(3) SCALE 345 wherein in case of appeal against acquittal, it has been held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by trial court. Thus, when two conclusions can be arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record, the conclusion which is favourable to accused should be accepted. Therefore, considering overall circumstances and evidence on record in this case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. The appeal is dismissed.