JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. The instant appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in S.T. 29 (ST/S) 2003 whereby and whereunder the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges leveled against them under Sections 376/366/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused respondents as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State appellant. 2. The prosecution case in short is that at about 4 p.m.. on 18.9.2001, when the victim girl, daughter of Siraj Miah, the informant (P.W. 1) reached near the house of her private tutor Kamal Miah, she was forcibly kidnapped by the accused persons, namely, Sabuj Miah, Khokan Miah, Ajit Miah, Manik Miah and Saha Alam and taken to Bijoynagar where she was kept in a tribal house for that night. On the next day, she was taken to another tribal house and she was kept there for the night. On the following day, she was brought to an unknown place on foot. Then she was taken to the house of accused Anuar Hussain at Ghaniamara, Bishalgarh in a jeep and was kept there for the night during which the accused Sabuj Miah is said to have raped her twice against her will on the point of dagger. On the following day, the accused Sabuj Miah and Anuar Hussain along with his wife took the victim girl to the sister’s house of Anuar Hussain at Birchandra Manu. From there the victim girl was rescued/recovered by her maternal uncle, brother-in-law and the brother-in-law of her sister. 3. After two days of recovery of the victim girl, P.W. 1, the father of the victim girl lodged ejahar to the Officer In-charge of the Sonamura P.S. stating, inter alia, the facts of kidnapping of his daughter by the accused, On the basis of the said complaint, Sonamura police station case No. 60 of 2001 was registered under Sections 366/34 IPC. 4. On completion of the investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused respondents under Sections 376/366/34 IPC. 4. On completion of the investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused respondents under Sections 376/366/34 IPC. The learned Magistrate SDJM Sonamura took cognizance of offences under Sections 366/376/109/212/34 IPC and the case was transferred to the court of the learned J.M. 1st class, Sonamura, who after complying the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura as the offence under Section 376 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 5. Upon hearing on both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused Sabuj Miah under Sections 366/376/34 IPC and under Sections 366/34 IPC against the accused Khokan Miah, Saha Alam, Manik Miah and Ajit Miah and under Section 109 IPC against the accused Anuar Hossain, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The further case of the defence is that the victim girl had a love affair with the accused Sabuj Miah with whom she went willingly to Ghaniamara where both of them got married according to the Mahammedan customs and rites. Thereafter, accused Sabuj Miah was assaulted mercilessly by the maternal uncle of the victim girl and others and she was taken away forcibly by them. 7. To bring home the charges of kidnapping and rape, the prosecution adduced 13 witnesses including the medical officer and the investigating officer (I.O.) and also exhibited some documents. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which they denied the allegations. 8. After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them. 9. Before proceeding with the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be proper to reproduce the relevant part of the prosecution witnesses as according to the learned Addl. P.P. the learned trial Court failed to consider their evidences. More so, being an appellate Court, let me reappreciate/review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal took place so that there cannot be any mis-carriage of justice to any of the parties. 10. P.P. the learned trial Court failed to consider their evidences. More so, being an appellate Court, let me reappreciate/review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal took place so that there cannot be any mis-carriage of justice to any of the parties. 10. Out of the thirteen prosecution witnesses, the P.W. 1 is the informant, father of the victim girl, who lodged FIR on 25.9.2001 after two days of recovery of the victim girl on 23.9.2001 written by one Khalek Miah and stated in his evidence that his daughter was kidnapped by the accused persons from the front of the house of one Halim Miah while her daughter was proceeding to the residence of her private tutor, but he could not remember from whom he came to know that her daughter was kidnapped by the accused persons. 11. P.W 2, the victim girl, stated in her deposition that at about 5 p.m., on 18.9.2001 while she was going to receive private tuition from her tutor Kamal Miah in the house of Halim Miah, the accused person namely, Sabuj Miah, Ajit Miah, Khokan Miah, Manik Miah and Saha Alam blocked her way. Sabuj Miah and Khokan Miah gagged her with her urna so as to prevent her from raising any alarm and they took her to the house of Khokan Miah from the front of the house of Halim Miah. Thereafter, she was taken to Bijoynagar through the jungle and was kept in a tribal house for the night. On the following day, she was again taken through the jungle to another tribal house at Balarambari where she was kept for one night. Next day, she was brought to a nearby place and from there to the house of accused Anu Miah (Anuar Hussain) at Bishalgarh in a jeep and was kept there for one night, during which she was allegedly raped by the accused Sabuj Miah twice and in commission of rape Sabuj Miah was helped by Anu Miah and his wife. On the next day, she was taken by the accused Sabuj Miah and others forcibly to Birchandra Manu from where she was recovered by her maternal uncle, brother-in-law and others after 2/3 days on 23.9.2001. 12. P.W. 3, Abu Taher stated that he came to know from one Rajjak Miah that his niece was kidnapped by Sabuj Miah, Ajit Miah, Manik Miah, Khokan Miah and Saha Alam. 12. P.W. 3, Abu Taher stated that he came to know from one Rajjak Miah that his niece was kidnapped by Sabuj Miah, Ajit Miah, Manik Miah, Khokan Miah and Saha Alam. Then he went to the house of his sister and told to his brother-in-law to inform the Sonamura P.S. Thereafter, on the 3rd day he came to know that the victim girl was taken to Ghaniamara under Bishalgarh P.S. and he went there and found the accused persons except accused Sabuj. So, he came back to Sonamura P.S. and taking police with him, he again went to Bishalgarh P.S. from where also police assistance was provided. Then he along with police personnel went to the house of Anu Miah, but the victim girl was not there. On interrogation, Anu Miah told that the victim girl was taken to Birchandra Manu. As such, he and others along with Anu Miah went to Birchandra Manu where they found the victim girl in the house of one Ketu Miah but seeing them the accused Sabuj Miah fled away from there. Thus the victim girl was recovered and she was brought to Sonamura P.S. P.W. 4 Sri Abul Hussain also stated in the same way. 13. P.W. 5 Feroja Khatoon is the mother of the victim girl who stated that at about 4/4.30 p.m.. on 2nd Asvina about three years back her daughter went to take tuition from Kamal Miah in the house of Halim Miah and as it was raining, when she went to bring her back around 6.30 p.m.., she was told by Kamal Miah that her daughter did not go for tuition. So she returned home and informed her husband and in the morning of the following day, they came to know that their daughter was kidnapped by Sabuj Miah, Ajit Miah, Manik Miah, Khokan Miah and Saha Alam. Then her brothers were also informed who recovered the victim girl after about six days. 14. P.W. 6 Jamila Khatoon, wife of accused Anu Miah stated that at about 12/12.30 p.m.. on 3rd Asvina about three years back accused Sabuj Miah, the friend of her husband, went to her house along with victim girl and they told that they came without the consent of their parents and that they wanted to be married. 14. P.W. 6 Jamila Khatoon, wife of accused Anu Miah stated that at about 12/12.30 p.m.. on 3rd Asvina about three years back accused Sabuj Miah, the friend of her husband, went to her house along with victim girl and they told that they came without the consent of their parents and that they wanted to be married. Thereafter, they were married in her house in presence of Pradhan and Moulana of the Masjid and they stayed in her house for that night. In the following morning they left her house. She also stated that the victim girl did not tell her about any torture by the accused Sabuj Miah. In her cross by the defence, she also stated that according to their customs the bride and bride groom cannot live together in the night of their marriage. In the night on the day of the marriage the victim girl slept in her room and the accused Sabul Miah slept in another room. She knew the victim girl before the incident and she also went to the house of the accused Sabuj several times earlier. When the accused Sabuj told her husband that they were willing to marry, her husband informed the Pradhan of Ganiamara Gaon panchayat Sri Muklesur Rahaman, who came to our house along with police at about 4 p.m.. One S.I. Amar Roy of BLG P.S came with Muklesur Rahaman. On being asked by the police victim girl told that she was in love with the accused Sabuj Miah for the last about two years and she wanted to get married with him. At about 6 p.m.. the Moulana of Durganagar Jamma Masjid Safiqul Alam came to their house and talked with the victim girl and the accused Sabuj. They were taken to the Masjid and the Kabin nama was written there. She was present there along with some others at that time. In the Masjid, the victim girl also wrote a paper in the marriage and Ramij Miah was the Vokil. Pradhan Mukhleswar Rahaman called Moulana from the Masjid. 15. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined, during which she denied to have made the statements before the I.O which were marked as Exhibit-2 and 3, subject to confirmation by the I.O. 16. Pradhan Mukhleswar Rahaman called Moulana from the Masjid. 15. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined, during which she denied to have made the statements before the I.O which were marked as Exhibit-2 and 3, subject to confirmation by the I.O. 16. P.W. 7, S.I.D. Gope registered Sonamura P.S. Case No. 6/01 on the basis of the written FIR and endorsed the investigation of the case to S.I. S. Chakraborty (P.W. 10). P.W. 8, C-1873 Smti Renu Debbarma escorted the victim girl to the Court of the learned SDJM, Sonamura for recording her statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. and also to IGM Hospital for her medical examination. P.W. 9 K. chakraborty, the then learned SDJM, Sonamura recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. which was marked as Exhibit-7 and P.W. 11 Sri Habil Miah proved the certificate stating the date of birth of the victim girl, which was marked as Exhibit-A. 17. P.W. 13, Dr. Mridul Das is the medical officer in the Deptt. of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology who examined the victim girl. He found no injury upon the victim girl (P.W 2). The doctor opined that the breasts were normal, but tender on examination, auxiliary pubic hair was present in growing stage, no injury was found in the inner aspect of the thighs, no bruise or abrasion was detected on genitals, however, the examination was painful. He also stated that the lebia majora, the labia minora, vestibules, clitoris and vagina as a whole was tender on examination. The hymen was fresh ruptured at 6 O’clock but no active bleeding was there and the uterus was normal. According to him, the age of the victim was between 16 and 17 years, possibility of rape could not be ruled out, but no spermatozoa was found in the vaginal swab and the result of the urine examination for pregnancy was negative. His report was marked as Exbt. 16. 18. The defence also adduced five witnesses to prove their innocence, the relevant parts of which are reproduced. D.W. 1 was a Member of Kamalnagar Gaon panchayat in the year 2001. He knew the victim girl, her father and the accused persons. His report was marked as Exbt. 16. 18. The defence also adduced five witnesses to prove their innocence, the relevant parts of which are reproduced. D.W. 1 was a Member of Kamalnagar Gaon panchayat in the year 2001. He knew the victim girl, her father and the accused persons. The accused Sabuj went to the panchayat and sought justice alleging that he was married with the victim girl as per Muslim rites, but father of the victim girl and her maternal uncle took her away from him forcibly. A meeting was convened in presence of panchayat Upa-pradhan and other members and also the victim girl, her father and maternal uncle and the accused and his guardians. In the meeting, at first, the victim girl admitted that she was married to the accused Sabuj at Ghaniamara as per Muslims rites, but when her father and maternal uncle came in the scene, she denied the facts and remained silent. In the meeting, a decision was taken and father of the victim girl was advised to withdraw the case instituted by him against the accused Sabuj and others, but the case was not withdrawn. 19. D.W. 2, Sri Ramij Miah stated that about 4 years back the accused Sabuj and the victim girl went to the house of his neighbor Anuwar Hussain and their marriage was solemnized at Ghaniamara Masjid, in which he was the Vokil and one Shafik Miah was the Moulavi. Both of them asked the victim girl whether she was agreed to be married to Sabuj to which she replied in the affirmative and also in writing. He also stated that the victim girl wrote a statement and put his signature at the bottom of that. The statement of the victim girl was marked as Exbt. B and his signature was marked as Exbt. B/1 (S/O). He also stated that Mukles Miah, the Pradhan of the Ghaniamara panchayat and police from Bishalgam P.S. were also present in the marriage ceremony. 20. D.W.-3 Sri Abul Kashem stated that about four years back it was heard that the accused Sabuj and victim girl were not traceable. After about 7/8 days, the accused Sabuj approached the panchayat and the village elders and sought remedy alleging that he married the victim girl at Ghaniamara as per Muslim rites but the guardians of victim girl did not allow her to live with him. After about 7/8 days, the accused Sabuj approached the panchayat and the village elders and sought remedy alleging that he married the victim girl at Ghaniamara as per Muslim rites but the guardians of victim girl did not allow her to live with him. It was also told by him that the guardians of the victim girl had instituted a case against him and his friends. A meeting was convened in the house of one Farid Miah in his presence, in which the Upapradhan, the Vice Chairperson of panchayat Samity, Sri Samsul Haque and the guardians of Sabuj and the victim girl were present. He further stated that on being asked by the Pradhan, the victim girl admitted that she went with the accused Sabuj willingly and was married to him but when her maternal uncle rebuked her; she remained silent all through the meeting. He also stated that it was revealed during the inquiry that there was a love affairs between the accused Sabuj and the victim girl and after thorough inquiry a decision was taken and the guardians of the victim girl were asked to withdraw the case against the accused Sabuj. 21. D.W. 4, Sri Shafikul Alam stated that the marriage of Sabuj with the victim girl was solemnized on 3rd Asvina 1408 B.S. as per Muslim rites at Ghaniamara Masjid with the consent of the victim girl. He further stated that police also came and enquired about the marriage and no document was prepared at the time of the marriage at the Masjid, however, the victim girl made a statement in presence of police in the house of Anwar Hussain that she was married to the accused Sabuj with her consent, which was recorded in a document and he signed at the bottom of it as the Imam. His signature therein was marked as Exhibit-C. He also stated that on 3.6.1408 B.S. another statement was made by the victim girl in her own hand writing in the house of Anuwar Hussain regarding her marriage with the accused Sabuj. This witness identified Exbt. B and Exbt. B/1. 22. D.W. 5, Sri Muklesh Miah Majumder stated that in the year, 2001, he was the Pradhan of Ghaniamara Gram Panchayat. This witness identified Exbt. B and Exbt. B/1. 22. D.W. 5, Sri Muklesh Miah Majumder stated that in the year, 2001, he was the Pradhan of Ghaniamara Gram Panchayat. He further stated that on 20.9.2001, he went to the house of Anu Miah as was called by an ASI of Bishalgarh P.S. and found the accused Sabuj and the victim girl there. He also stated that he was told that they fled away from their house and on being asked, the victim girl told that she was in love with the accused Sabuj and they were married, but the marriage was solemnized by the Imam of Ghaniamara Masjid Sri Shafikul Alam and that he issued a certificate stating the facts. The certificate was marked as Exhibit-D and the signature of the witness was marked as Exbt. D/1. 23. Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State appellant submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidences on record and committed error having not believed the P.W. 2 as well as the evidence of the doctor. He further stated that the P.W. 2, the victim girl described the atrocities to her that the accused persons gagged her mouth with her urna so that she could not raise any alarm and she was taken from this place to that place through jungle. Ultimately she was taken in a house where the accused Sabuj stayed with her and committed rape twice upon her. And it is also an admitted fact that after kidnapping the victim girl, the accused Sabuj took her at a far off place from where she was recovered in the long run. He further urges that it is apparent from the medical evidence, P.W. 13 Dr. Mridul Das who opined that it would not be determined definitely as to whether the victim was raped or not and therefore he opined that chance of rape cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 2 the victim girl should not be disbelieved and the accused respondent Sabuj should not be treated as innocent. Mridul Das who opined that it would not be determined definitely as to whether the victim was raped or not and therefore he opined that chance of rape cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 2 the victim girl should not be disbelieved and the accused respondent Sabuj should not be treated as innocent. He further submits that the delay for lodging FIR in an offence against an woman is obvious and not fatal, as in the case of rape, victim girl and their family members have to think twice whether they would inform the matter to the police or not, as such information may cast sigma on their family reputation. It is stated that the victim girl had love affairs with the accused Sabuj and she eloped with him willingly and accordingly they got married, but the said marriage has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, he contends., He also contends that had the victim girl got married to the accused Sabuj, she would not have come back to her parent’s house. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 24. Mr. Datta, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused respondents submits that from the statement of the victim girl, it is evident that the victim girl herself left with the accused Sabuj Miah. Not only that there was also marriage between victim girl and the accused Sabuj Miah in presence of Imam Md. Safikul Alam, D.W. 4 and other witnesses including the Pradhan of Ghaniamara Gaon panchayat (D.W. 5). Thus it can be easily said that the victim girl was a consented party in the alleged rape. 25. It is further evident from the statement of P.W. 2, victim girl that at the relevant time, she was at the age of 17 years and she is quite aware about the sex with the accused and consequence thereof. Thus, such a sexual intercourse cannot be considered as rape. In support of his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in K.P. Thimmappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2011 AIR SCW 2281, particularly para-13 of the said Report which reads as under: 13. In the present case, the facts are that Rathnamma herself stated in her evidence that she had sex with the appellant on several occasions. In the present case, the facts are that Rathnamma herself stated in her evidence that she had sex with the appellant on several occasions. It is also an admitted fact that the FIR against the appellant was lodged just a few days before the birth of Rathnamma’s child, which means there is delay of over 8 months in lodging the FIR. The finding of the trial Court, which has not been disturbed by the High Court is that Rathnamma was about 18 years of age at the relevant time. On these facts a view is reasonably possible that Rathnamma had sex with the appellant with her consent and hence there was no offence under Section 376, IPC because sex with a woman above 16 years of age with her consent is not rape. 26. Supporting the acquittal of the accused respondents by the trial Court, he has also placed reliance in Hajarat Ali v. State of Assam,. : 2004 (3) GLT 110: (2004) 3 GLR 503, particularly para-7 of the said Report, which read as under: 7. From a close scrutiny of the deposition of the witness above mentioned, especially, the prosecutrix, P.W. 3, it appears that though 20/25 families were residing within the neighbourhood of her house when she was taken in a bicycle, she did not resist such action of the appellant and without making any hue and cry or raising any alarm, she proceeded in the bi-cycle with the appellant. That apart, during her entire stay of one and half month with the appellant, she herself admitted that she had the occasion to meet many people but she did not utter anything about all those incident before the people she had come across. More surprising fact is that when the entire episode took place at Tezpur, Kalakuchi and Rangapara, P.W. 3, suddenly shifted the venue to Mangaldoi and even she was silent at the time of court marriage which was solemnized at Mangaldoi. In the view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the evidence of P.W. 2 cannot be accepted as trustworthy and reliable and she was appearing to be willing party to go with the appellant on her own. It also appears that the prosecutrix was found to be below 18 years as per ossification test with the variation of one year of age on either side. It also appears that the prosecutrix was found to be below 18 years as per ossification test with the variation of one year of age on either side. Hence on the basis of such evidence, the impugned conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. 27. Mr. Datta further contended that in a criminal case, normally, an accused should be considered always innocence till he is convicted. More so, when two views are possible, then the view which favours the accused should be accepted. In the instant case, after acquittal of all the accused respondents, their innocence is fully established. Thus it would be proper for the Court to maintain the order of acquittal and dismiss the appeal. 28. On scrutiny of the evidence, it appears that the alleged incident of kidnapping of the victim girl was occurred on 18.9.2001. On the following morning, the P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 came to know the said fact of kidnapping, but no FIR was lodged with the police on that very day or on the following day in this regard, rather they remained silent still she was recovered on 23.9.2001. Thereafter also, after two days, on 25.9.2001, the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim girl, but without disclosing the fact of alleged rape which casts a doubt on the prosecution case. 29. In a case of rape, age of the victim girl is the main factor. The doctor (P.W. 13) has opined that the age of the victim girl on the date of examination on 26.9.2001 was between 16 and 17 years, i.e. the age of the victim girl was above 16 years. P.W. 2 the victim girl in her deposition stated that she was taken to the house of the accused Anuar Hussain where she was kept for one night and during that night, the accused Sabuj Miah raped her twice and in the commission of rape, the accused was helped by Anuar Hussain and his wife. But she did not disclose at any time how they helped the accused to the commission of rape upon her during that night whereas P.W. 6 the wife of Anuar Hussain deposed that the victim girl did not tell anything regarding any torture upon her by the accused. But she did not disclose at any time how they helped the accused to the commission of rape upon her during that night whereas P.W. 6 the wife of Anuar Hussain deposed that the victim girl did not tell anything regarding any torture upon her by the accused. P.W. 6 further stated that the accused Sabuj Miah and the P.W. 2 went to her house and told her that they wanted to be married. Accordingly they got married as per Mohammedan customs and rites in presence of the Pradhan and the Moulavi (Moulana). The Pradhan Sri Mukles Miah (DW 5) and Moulavi (Moulana) Sri Shafikul Alam (DW 4) corroborated P.W. 6 in this aspect. While passing the order of acquittal, learned trial Court recorded that as per Section- 8 of the Muslim Personal Law, a girl was empowered to give consent on completion of her puberty. The victim girl denied vehemently her marriage with the accused Sabuj Miah, but it is in evidence that there was a meeting in the house of one Farid Miah in which the victim girl had admitted that she went with the accused Sabuj willingly and was married with him, although she later denied to have known about any meeting in the house of Farid Miah, thus the evidence of P.W. 2, the victim girl inspires no confidence. Rather, towards commission of alleged rape by the accused Sabuj upon the victim girl, P.W. 2, she was a consented party and if P.W. 2 the victim girl married the accused Sabuj, intercourse with her by the accused Sabuj would not constitute an offence of rape, as she was more than 16 years old. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 13, Dr. Mridul Das who examined the victim girl (P.W. 2) that the age of the victim girl was at the relevant time of alleged rape was between 16 and 17 years. It is a settled position of law that when the prosecutrix/victim is above sixteen years of age and roamed at several places in the company of the accused, but did not complain to anybody, it shows that she was a consented party. (See Naravan @ Naran v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Cri. L.J. 2733). It is a settled position of law that when the prosecutrix/victim is above sixteen years of age and roamed at several places in the company of the accused, but did not complain to anybody, it shows that she was a consented party. (See Naravan @ Naran v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Cri. L.J. 2733). The above views of the Apex Court reiterated in K.P. Thimmappa Gowda (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that there is no offence under Section 376 IPC, because sex with a woman above 16 years of age with her consent is not rape. 30. On scrutiny of the FIR, it appears that though the FIR was lodged after recovery of the victim girl, but P.W. 1, the informant nowhere made any allegations of rape. Normally, human psychology is that if any incident happed to a person, then he/she would divulge the same to the nearest person. In this case, P.W. 1 in his FIR also did not state anything that the victim girl at any point of time disclosed to him regarding the incident of marriage as well as alleged rape. Thus, it cannot be overruled that she herself went with the accused Sabuj. 31. It is also apparent from the record that the victim girl passed about 5/6 days with the accused Sabuj. During that period, she was moved from place to place. She also stayed at different houses. But there is no whisper that she tried to escape or she raised any alarm to recover her from the clutch of the accused Sabuj, if she found herself in such a position inasmuch as she must have met many other persons in places at different times till she was recovered by her maternal uncle and others,. Even she remained silent at the time of marriage which was solemnized at the house of P.W. 6 in presence of others including the Pradhan and Moulana, Therefore, this Court is of the view that the evidence of the P.W. 2, the victim girl, cannot be taken as trustworthy and reliable. She appears to be willing party to go with the accused Sabuj on her own will. 32. Further it is also not evident from the evidence that the DWs have any enmity with the family of P.W. 2 for which they could depose falsely against the victim and the informant party. She appears to be willing party to go with the accused Sabuj on her own will. 32. Further it is also not evident from the evidence that the DWs have any enmity with the family of P.W. 2 for which they could depose falsely against the victim and the informant party. Therefore, a doubt is created about the prosecution case. 33. By this time, it is settled that when two inferences are possible in a case, then Court should accept one which favours the accused. Not only that, the Court should be more cautious and should keep in mind the cardinal rule as prescribed, namely, (a) that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has been strengthened by the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court, (b) if two views are possible, a view favourable to the accused should be taken, (c) that the trial Judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of the witnesses and (d) the accused is entitled to a reasonable benefit of doubt, a doubt which a thinking man will reasonably, honestly and consciously entertain. (See State v. Vazir Hakki,: 2005 Crl. L.J. 2719). 34. The same principle is echoed again by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Shibu @ Shiv Narain & Ors. 2008 AIR SCW 5400 wherein it is held that there is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. As a matter of fact, in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court as the Court of first appeal is obliged to go into greater detail of the evidence to see whether any miscarriage has resulted from the order of acquittal, though it has to act with great circumspection and utmost care before ordering the reversal of an acquittal. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that the miscarriage of justice is prevented. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that the miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. 35. In a criminal case, mere suspicion is not enough to convict an accused. If there is slightest doubt in the mind of the Court after going through the evidence regarding involvement of the accused in the offence for which he has been tried, then it should be the duty of the Court to acquit the accused of the charge levelled against him. 36. In Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P. 2007 Crl L.J. 754 also observed in para-30 as follows: 30. In kalian Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCALE 577, this court has held: The High Court while dealing with the matter, in our considered opinion, failed to apply the proper tests in deciding a case where a judgment of acquittal has been recorded. The views of the learned Trial Judge cannot be said to be wholly unsustainable. It is now well-known that if two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. We do not, however, mean to lay down the law that the High Court, in a case where a judgment of acquittal is in question, would not go into the evidence brought on records by the prosecution or by the State but, we would like to point out that even if the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, it is incumbent on the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that no two views are possible. 37. Having gone through the evidence of the witnesses and judgment impugned, this Court does not consider that miscarriage of justice was done by the trial Court by passing the order of acquittal of the accused respondents. Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the appeal fails and accordingly the same is dismissed being devoid of merit. Send down the L.C. records.