JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 21.6.2008 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 12-R/7 of 04/02, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kuldeep Singh, challenging the acquittal of respondent Kuldeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of prosecution that in the year 2002 (exact date not mentioned), accused subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse. Incident took place in the forest, at a time when prosecutrix had gone to collect the fuel wood. Since prosecutrix conceived, accused offered to marry her, which promise he did not fulfill. Allegedly, at that time prosecutrix was 16 years of age. On 18.2.2002, FIR No. 18 (Ex. PW-6/A) was registered with the police. SI Karam Singh (PW-8) conducted investigation. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Sunita Gupta (PW-9), who issued MLC (Ex. PW-9/B). 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 an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded false implication. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Chaman Negi, 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. 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 offence. 8. In Prandas Vs. 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 S. 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 S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - Sheo Swarup and Others vs. The King-EmperorAIR 1934 227 (Privy Council) , 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 recognized in the administration of justice." 9. In the instant case, we find that Smt. Binta Devi (PW-2), mother of the prosecutrix, has not supported the prosecution. She was declared hostile and nothing fruitful could be elicited from her cross-examination. From her testimony, it is quite apparent that prosecution had not disclosed the incident to her. 10. Prosecution wants the Court to believe that at the time of the incident, prosecutrix was 16 years of age. However, we find such fact not to have been proved on record. Mother of the prosecutrix does state that in the year 2002, prosecutrix was 16 years of age. Testimony of Vinod Chauhan (PW-1), who proved the date of birth of prosecutrix, vide certificate (Ex. PW-1/A), also does not help the prosecution. Date of birth so recorded is 29.7.1985, but then on whose asking and on what basis, such entries were recorded, has not been established by him. 11. Prosecutrix states that at the time of occurrence of offence, she was 15 years of age. We do not find this version of hers to be inspiring in confidence, more so in view of testimony of her mother and also scientific evidence on record. Dr. Sunita Gupta has clearly deposed the dental age of the prosecutrix to be between 17 and 19 years and the radiological age to be between 16 and 18 years. Witness was examined in February, 2002. Dr. Sunita Gupta has clearly deposed the dental age of the prosecutrix to be between 17 and 19 years and the radiological age to be between 16 and 18 years. Witness was examined in February, 2002. Now, if prosecutrix were to be believed, the alleged offence took place very same year. 12. That apart, version of the prosecutrix, of the accused, who undisputedly is her first cousin, of having committed rape, in the jungle, is uninspiring in confidence. The witness cannot be said to be worthy of credence and her statement inspiring in confidence. She contradicts herself by stating that the child was born prior to the registration of FIR. Further, she admits to have lodged FIR (Ex. PW-6/A). Now perusal of this FIR only reveals that prosecutrix had sexual intercourse with "one boy, who works at Royal Sweet Shop, Rohru". Now, who is this boy, has not been disclosed nor investigated by the police. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused is the very same boy and is employed at the said shop. It is also not the prosecution case that after having sex with "the boy", prosecutrix was subjected to rape. There is nothing to link the foetus of the child with the accused. Further in Court, she has improved her version by deposing that accused subjected her to rape twice. Once in her house and second time when she had gone to fetch grass. She admits not to have disclosed such fact to her mother. Why so? no reasonable explanation is forthcoming. 13. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix and also criminally intimidated her. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 15. 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 Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 15. 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 Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2010 SC 566 , 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 ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.