JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. – We have heard learned A.G.A. for the State and have also been taken through the impugned judgment of acquittal. 2. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No.1180 of 2012, State v. Gulzar, arising out of Crime No. 688 of 2010 for offence under Sections 366, 376 and 506, I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Ghaziabad. 3. The prosecution version, as is apparent from the impugned judgment makes it evident that the prosecutrix lodged the first information report on 20.07.2010 at Police Station Hapur, District Ghaziabad with the allegations that accused Gulzar son of Mehar Elahi Mohammad abducted her on 19.07.2010 at about 7: 00 p.m. when she was going to the market in Hapur passing through Jain Lok street where accused-respondent abducted her in Alto car. There were two persons inside the car. Accused-respondent threatened her showing bottle of acid and asked her to marry him, which she refused. Thereafter the vehicle was taken towards Govindpuram, Ghaziabad and he committed rape on her at a deserted place and left her at that place. He also threatened her that in case she told about the incident to anyone, she will be killed. Thereafter she went to lodge the first information report at Police Station Kavi Nagar where she was told that the matter relates to Police Station Hapur, therefore, she went to Police Station Hapur where the first information report was not lodged. 4. The prosecutrix then moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad whereupon the case was registered as Case Crime No.688 of 2010 under Section 364, 376, 506 I.P.C. The matter was investigated into by S.I. Chhatrapal Singh, who during course of investigation apart from other formalities got the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2010. 5. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 21.07.2010 at 1: 00 p.m. Supplementary medical report Ext. Ka-6 was also prepared by Dr. Deepa Tyagi PW-3. In the medical examination, no mark of any injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix. No complaint of pain was reported at the time of medical examination. Vaginal smear was taken to the pathology department for examining presence of sperm. This report is Ext. Ka-4. Ka-6 was also prepared by Dr. Deepa Tyagi PW-3. In the medical examination, no mark of any injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix. No complaint of pain was reported at the time of medical examination. Vaginal smear was taken to the pathology department for examining presence of sperm. This report is Ext. Ka-4. No sperm was found on the sample slides sent for examination. No opinion about commission of rape could be given. 6. The Investigating Officer took note of all material completed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused-respondent whereupon the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 7. In the trial, accused-respondent was charged for offences under sections 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. Charges were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in an endeavour to establish the above charges examined the prosecutrix PW-1, Constable 2764 Rakesh Singh PW-2, Dr. Deepa Tyagi PW-3 and S.I. Chhatrapal Singh PW-4. Except prosecutrix PW-1, there is no any other independent witness of fact of incident. Thereafter, evidence for prosecution was closed. 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has specifically stated that he had instituted a Case No.325 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No.658 of 2004 under Sections 352, 323, 326, 504, 506, 427, 326 I.P.C. Police Station Hapur Kotwali against the father of the prosecutrix namely Ilyas and her two brothers Billu and Irshad wherein the judgment of conviction was recorded and both, the father and brothers of the prosecutrix were sentenced. The prosecutrix has deliberately instituted this case with a view to take avenge. The defence has filed certain papers in the trial court in regard to above claim. The accused also got examined himself as D.W. 1. 10. The trial court after churning the entire facts and evidence recorded findings to the effect that testimony of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions and discrepancies and the same is not credible evidence. Her testimony does not inspire confidence. In absence of any independent corroboration, her testimony cannot be believed and observed that there is no independent corroboration of the incident and acquitted accused from all the charges. Hence, this appeal. 11. Her testimony does not inspire confidence. In absence of any independent corroboration, her testimony cannot be believed and observed that there is no independent corroboration of the incident and acquitted accused from all the charges. Hence, this appeal. 11. The moot point involved for consideration in this appeal is as to whether testimony of rape as adduced by the prosecution, particularly evidence of prosecutrix before the trial court is credible and worthy of reliance or not? In this context, perusal of her testimony and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as a whole shows material contradictions in the manner of abduction, rape and injury being caused to the prosecutrix. It would be relevant to mention the manner of contractions. When the prosecutrix was abducted from corner of the street measuring 25 feet in breadth, naturally door of car must have been opened and she would have been dragged inside the car but there is no mention as to why she did not cry for help. 12. As per version of the prosecutrix, accused sat over her chest for about 20-25 minutes by laying her down on the rear seat of the car while she was in the process of being conveyed from Hapur to Ghaziabad after she was abducted. This by itself is doubtful because the prosecutrix could not answer as to what was position of the accused when the accused was sitting over her chest. She could not specify in which direction was the face of the accused either to the rear side of the car or to the left or right side of the car. She could not even tell about as to what clothes, he was wearing. She has told that at the time of abduction and during rape, there were two persons, the one is not known to her but she can identify him. 13. The Investigating Officer Chhatrapal Singh PW-4 has deposed that during the entire course of investigation, presence of another person could not be proved by evidence. The prosecutrix has testified that she was given threats by throwing acid upon her while she was abducted. Therefore, she could not raise any cry. However, in her deposition, she has clarified that she saw a bottle of acid only when she was being raped by the accused. This means she was not shown any bottle of acid prior to the incident of rape. Therefore, she could not raise any cry. However, in her deposition, she has clarified that she saw a bottle of acid only when she was being raped by the accused. This means she was not shown any bottle of acid prior to the incident of rape. Subsequent to commission of rape upon her, she was left at a deserted place. She somehow came out from the deserted place when she met with an unknown person who took her on his scooter to Police Station Kavi Nagar but there is no whisper about least identity of the person, who thus helped her. There is no mention that this unknown person ever asked about the fact as to how she happened to be present at deserted place around 8: 00-9: 00 p.m. she is hopelessly unable to tell name of this unknown person. 14. As per testimony of the prosecutrix, she reached at Police Station Hapur Kotwali around 11: 00 p.m. Can a lady who has been sexually assaulted normally dare to accompany any unknown person on his scooter and travel distance from Ghaziabad to Hapur for lodging the first information report around 11: 00 p.m. This circumstantial aspect of the case creates doubt on the very version/testimony of the prosecutrix about the incident. There are glaring contradictions between typed report Ext. Ka-1 and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her testimony before the trial court. Either of these two versions may be true but the two versions when taken together render the entire incident highly improbable and unreasonable. 15. It is further relevant to mention that Dr. Deepa Tyagi PW-3 has deposed that no mark of injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of medical examination. As per testimony of the prosecutrix, she was caused burn injury (by cigarette) by the accused on two places whereas the prosecutrix did not mention this fact either in her first information report or in her statement given to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has denied this fact that the prosecutrix ever told about any injury being caused to her by cigarette burn. The Investigating Officer has denied this fact that the prosecutrix ever told about any injury being caused to her by cigarette burn. In this backdrop we may easily infer that the accused had previously lodged criminal case against the father and the two brothers of the prosecutrix wherein they were convicted and sentenced by the trial court which fact may act as the motivating factor for false implication of the accused. 16. It appears quite natural that the prosecution in order to teach a lesson to the accused prepared a false case by creating cooked up theory of rape. The entire testimony of the prosecutrix is fraught with contradictions right from the stage of first information report, her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony in court. 17. In this view of the matter, the trial court was justified in taking reasonable precaution by observing that it would be safer to rely on some independent corroboration apart from sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 18. As per the settled law, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix regarding commission of rape is sufficient for convicting a person but in case where doubt is generated because of testimony and circumstances of the case regarding trustworthiness of the prosecutrix version then right course open is to have some independent corroboration, which is missing in this case. In this regard we are in agreement with the finding so recorded by the trial court. 19. Before parting with judgment it would be relevant to take note of fact that we after careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment discover no perversity in the judgment of trial court. We are fully conscious of fact that presumption of innocence is available to the accused even up to this appellate stage which got strengthened by order of acquittal in favour of accused by the trial court. Thus the view taken by the trial court in recording finding of acquittal are just and reasonable. Even if other view is possible it would not be proper to substitute our own view in place of finding recorded by the trial court. This approach is to be avoided and the view as taken by the trial court has got to be affirmed. This rationale/principle has been enunciated in detail in Bhadragiri Venketa Ravi v. Pubic Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 2013 (4) Supreme 450 . 20. This approach is to be avoided and the view as taken by the trial court has got to be affirmed. This rationale/principle has been enunciated in detail in Bhadragiri Venketa Ravi v. Pubic Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 2013 (4) Supreme 450 . 20. Similarly, in Kanhaiya Lal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 1940 : 2014 (2) ACR 1185 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the court should keep in view the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused as the same gets fortified by his acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is well grounded and based on material on record. 21. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we see no infirmity latent or patent in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We are, accordingly, not inclined to interfere with the judgment and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge in respect of the accused-respondent. The instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. 22. Leave to appeal is thus refused. 23. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned.