JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 30.3.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2006, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satish Kumar, whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that accused Satish Kumar with assurance of getting married repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix (PW-1) to sexual intercourse. On his refusal to get married, prosecutrix informed her father Sh. Shankaru Ram (PW-2). When her father confronted the accused, in writing (Ext. PW-1/A) he agreed of marrying the prosecutrix. However despite assurances, marriage was not solemnized, hence prosecutrix reported the matter to the police. F.I.R. No. 118/2005, dated 7.12.2005 (Ext. PW-1/C) was registered at Police Station Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla, under the provisions of Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused. Investigating Officer ASI Rattan Chand (PW-10) got the prosecutrix medically examined from Dr. Seema Sharma (PW-11) who issued MLC (Ext. PW-11/A, 11/B & 11/C). The radiological age of the prosecutrix was determined to be 19 years. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 452, 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eleven witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 5. After trial, accused stands acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. B.S. Parmar and Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Addl. Advocate Generals assisted by Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Dy. A.G. and Mr. J. S. Guleria, learned Asstt. A.G., on behalf of the State as also Mr. G. D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Vikram Thakur, learned Dy. A.G. and Mr. J. S. Guleria, learned Asstt. A.G., on behalf of the State as also Mr. G. D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offences. 8. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: "(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal P.C., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice." 9. That on the date of alleged commission of crime, prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age is not in dispute. None the less medical record establishes her radiological age to be more than 19 years. Testimonies of Dr. Neeraj Mittal (PW-5) and Dr. Seema Sharma (PW-11) have proved the medical record (Ext. PW-5/A, Ext. PW-5/A1 to 5/A8 and Ext. PW-11/A to 11/C) to this effect. Also Ravinder Singh (PW-6) and Yoginder Makhaik (PW-4) have proved pariwar register (Ext.PW-6/A) and certificate/school register (Ext. PW-4/B) to this effect. 10. That prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse is also not disputed, which fact in any event stands admitted not only by the prosecutrix but also proved by Dr. Seema Sharma (PW-11) from the medical record. But whether it was voluntary or involuntary needs to be examined. 11. Except for ocular evidence there is nothing on record to establish document (Ext. PW-1/A) to be written by the accused. It was produced by the prosecutrix. Accused denied having singed the same. Thus it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have established execution thereof by the accused in his own hand. Handwriting of the accused is not on record for comparison. Be that as it may, all that the document states is that "within 10 days from 30.11.2005 I would solemnize my marriage with girl (Shanta)". Who is this Shanta? has not been proved. Handwriting of the accused is not on record for comparison. Be that as it may, all that the document states is that "within 10 days from 30.11.2005 I would solemnize my marriage with girl (Shanta)". Who is this Shanta? has not been proved. Her age, address and parentage is not recorded in the document. Also it does not record the fact that accused ever promised to get married to the prosecutrix and/or under such false promises, by deceit, subjected her to sexual intercourse. 12. When we examine the testimony of prosecutrix we find that in the year 2004 she was studying in twelfth class at the Government Senior Secondary School, Kumarsain. She admits that at that time, for the last one year she was having an affair with the accused. She had been meeting him quite often. In the month of July, 2004, accused came to her house and finding her alone removed her clothes and had intercourse with her. At that time accused assured of marrying her. She states that despite her resistance and objection, accused persisted. Again on 30.11.2005 while she was having sex with the accused in her house, all of a sudden her father came and saw them. When accused tried to run away, he was apprehended by her father. There accused expressed his intention of marrying her in writing. Also mother of the accused along with one Kaunu Devi came to her house. Even she assured of getting the accused married with the prosecutrix. Only when it was not so done did she lodge complaint with the police. 13. From the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-1) we do not find it to be a case of rape; cheating or house trespass with preparation of assault. Prosecutrix had crossed the age of discretion. She was having an affair with the accused for over a period of one year. Significantly she never disclosed the promises so meted out by the accused of marrying her either to her parents or anyone else. It is not a case where prosecutrix was enticed away by the accused and taken to a lonely place, where under fear of threat or intimidation she was subjected to sexual assault. She continued to enjoy intimacy in every sense of the word over a considerable period of time. It is not a case where prosecutrix was enticed away by the accused and taken to a lonely place, where under fear of threat or intimidation she was subjected to sexual assault. She continued to enjoy intimacy in every sense of the word over a considerable period of time. It appears that only when she was caught in a compromising position by her father that the matter was reported to the police. Prosecutrix states that document (Ext. PW-1/A) was witnessed by her brother and one another villager Amar Dutt. Now brother of the prosecutrix has not been examined in court. Said document in any case is not a confession of guilt of the accused. Her version that she objected to sexual intercourse, we find, is an improvement from her previous statement (Ext. PW-1/C) with which she was confronted. 14. When we examine the testimony of Shankru Ram (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix, we find that even he admits knowledge of relationship of intimacy which his daughter had with the accused. 15. To us it appears to be a clear case of consent. Having perused the testimony of prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that accused committed rape, cheating or house trespass with preparation of assault, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. It cannot be said that findings returned by the Court below are not borne out from record, are perverse, illegal, erroneous or arisen out of incomplete appreciation of the prosecution evidence. 16. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.