JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal arises from the judgment of acquittal, dated 12.08.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2010. The State of Himachal Pradesh has maintained the present appeal for setting-aside judgment of acquittal and punishing the accused for the offences committed under Section 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a statement, Ex. PW-8/A, before the Police that she was married with Shri Satish Kumar, resident of Village Bharoli, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P, on 04.04.2017, in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P. Subsequently, prosecutrix and her husband started residing in the house of her husband’s 'mausa’ at Sujanpur. They stayed there with effect from 04.04.2007 to 15.04.2007. On 10.04.2007, the prosecutrix was alone in the house, as her mausi, Smt. Pawana Devi, her daughter-in-law and her dever had gone to the local bus-stand to see off the daughter of the accused. At about 12 noon, the accused entered into the room of the prosecutrix, bolted the door from inside and committed rape on the prosecutrix. He also took obscene photographs with the mobile phone. The prosecutrix raised alarm, but she was threatened to be killed. On return of other family members from the bus-stand, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to Sapna Devi, daughter-in-law of her mausi, but she did not take any action. On 11.04.20007, when the husband of the prosecutrix came to the house, he was informed by the prosecutrix about the incident and he took the prosecutrix to the house of his maternal uncle, but her husband consumed poison there and was saved with difficulty. Thereafter, they dislodged to village Raili, P.O. Raili Jajri and since then they resided there. 3. Consequent upon the statement of the prosecutrix, an FIR, Ex. PW-11/A, was reduced into writing. Inspector, Kamal Devi (PW-10) investigated the case and on 03.06.2009, moved application, Ex. PW-1/A, for medical examination of the prosecutrix and the same was conducted by PW-1, Dr. Archna Soni. Report to this extent is Ex. PW-1/B. 4. The accused was arrested and police moved an application, Ex. PW-2/A, for medical examination of the accused. He was medically examined by PW-2, Dr. Parveen Kumar, and MLC to this effect is Ex. PW-1/A, for medical examination of the prosecutrix and the same was conducted by PW-1, Dr. Archna Soni. Report to this extent is Ex. PW-1/B. 4. The accused was arrested and police moved an application, Ex. PW-2/A, for medical examination of the accused. He was medically examined by PW-2, Dr. Parveen Kumar, and MLC to this effect is Ex. PW-2/B. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, ASI Sukh Lal (PW-11), visited the spot and prepared site plan, Ex. PW-11/C. Photographs, Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/D, were also taken. Application, Ex. PW-12/A, was moved by the police and statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ex. PW-8/B, was recorded. On completion of investigation the challan was presented in the Court. 5. In order prove its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses and accused also examined one witness in defence. 6. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned Defence Counsel for the respondent/accused and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1, Dr. Archna Soni, stated that application, Ex. PW-1/A, dated 03.06.2009, was moved by the police, and she conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix and issued MLC, Ex. PW-1/B. Relevant portion of her medical examination is extracted below: “Labia minoro and labia majora well developed. Pubic hair present and matted. She was menstruating at the time of examination and fresh bleeding was present. Hymen was torn. No fresh injury on the part examined. E/V per vagina: Vagina roomy. Hymen admits two fingers easily. Cervix down, uterus normal in size, firm and fornixes were clear. Opinion: In her opinion, the prosecutrix was habitual. However, for decision of assault at that time, opinion of Gynecologist sought and there was no evidence of old injuries on the body.” PW-1, Dr. Archna Soni, did not give any opinion qua assault on the person of the prosecutrix, as the prosecutrix was married for about three years and was habitual of sexual intercourse. PW-2, Dr. Praveen Kumar, medically examined the accused on an application moved by the police, Ex. PW-2/A, and issued MLC, Ex. PW-2/B. PW-2 found the accused capable of performing sexual intercourse. 8. PW-3, Smt. Veena Kumari, has stated that the prosecutrix and her husband stayed in a rented accommodation in her neighbourhood and the prosecutrix did not say anything to this witness. Praveen Kumar, medically examined the accused on an application moved by the police, Ex. PW-2/A, and issued MLC, Ex. PW-2/B. PW-2 found the accused capable of performing sexual intercourse. 8. PW-3, Smt. Veena Kumari, has stated that the prosecutrix and her husband stayed in a rented accommodation in her neighbourhood and the prosecutrix did not say anything to this witness. On her cross-examination she did not say that the prosecutrix told her that the accused committed rape on her when she was alone in the house. This witness was confronted with her earlier statement, Ex. PW-3/A, but she stated that she did not make such statement to the police. In her cross-examination by the defence counsel, she has admitted that Satish Kumar (husband of the prosecutrix) was unemployed when he stayed in her neighbourhood for about three years and it is also admitted that the mother of Satish Kumar is God sister of brother of PW-3. 9. Smt. Raj Kumari (PW-4) stated that PW-3, Veena Kumari, is her nanad and she used to visit her house. As per the version of PW-4 the prosecutrix did not tell anything to her about the incident. On her cross-examination, she stated that mother of Satish Kumar (husband of the prosecutrix) is God sister of her husband and both prosecutrix and her husband stayed in a rented accommodation at Harmandir. PW-4, Raj Kumari, was confronted with her statement given to the police, Ex. PW-4/A, but she has denied that the prosecutrix had informed PW-3, Veena Kumari, about the alleged rape by the accused. 10. PW-5, Hoshiar Singh, has taken the photographs, Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/D. PW-7, Constable Pawan Kumar, got medical examination conducted from PW-2, Dr. Praveen Kumar. Both these witnesses are formal in nature, hence needs no further discussion. 11. PW-6, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, mother-in-law of the prosecutrix, stated that the prosecutrix told that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused. However, she did not believe the same. On her cross-examination, she stated that both prosecutrix and her husband stayed in the house of the accused for about a month and the prosecutrix informed her about the incident when she was alone. However, she thought that the prosecutrix was telling a lie. However, she did not believe the same. On her cross-examination, she stated that both prosecutrix and her husband stayed in the house of the accused for about a month and the prosecutrix informed her about the incident when she was alone. However, she thought that the prosecutrix was telling a lie. PW-6 has further stated that she did not know that the accused and his wife had given Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) as loan to the prosecutrix and her husband, Satish Kumar, for settling their home or business after marriage. 12. Prosecutrix was examined as PW-8 and she has stated that she had married Satish Kumar on her own. On 28.09.2006, she and Satish Kumar entered into marriage at Amritsar in a temple, but they had no documents of their marriage, therefore, they shifted to the house of the accused. Thereafter, they went to the maternal uncle of her husband at Cochin. Prosecutrix has further stated that after the court marriage, they stayed in the house of the accused w.e.f. 04.04.2007 to 15.04.2007. On 10.04.2007, her dever, Sapna (daughter-in-law of the accused) and wife of the accused had gone to bus-stand to see off the daughter of the accused and she was left alone with the accused, as the accused did not go to the bus-stand. On 10.04.2007, husband of the prosecutrix had gone out of the house for some work. Prosecutrix has stated that while she was in the bed room, accused entered the room, bolted the door from inside, pulled her and raped her. The accused had also taken obscene photographs of the prosecutrix with the mobile. He had increased the volume of the television when the prosecutrix was crying and she was also threatened to be killed by the accused, if she divulge the incident to any one. As per the version of the prosecutrix, she divulged the incident to the wife of the accused, but she did not believe her and when the prosecutrix informed about the incident to the daughter-in-law of the accused, she told that she could not help her, as the accused also used to suppress her. The prosecutrix has stated that she narrated the incident to her husband when he came on 14.04.2007, thereafter, on 15.04.2007, both of them left the house of the accused and went to the house of Prabhat Singh (maternal uncle of her husband) at village Dadlu. The prosecutrix has stated that she narrated the incident to her husband when he came on 14.04.2007, thereafter, on 15.04.2007, both of them left the house of the accused and went to the house of Prabhat Singh (maternal uncle of her husband) at village Dadlu. On the evening of 15.04.2007 the husband of the prosecutrix consumed poison, but somehow survived. Thereafter her husband telephoned Smt. Ambika Sood, President of the Mahila Commission, when he came out of depression and they were called to Bilaspur where the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. Her statement, Ex. PW-8/A, was recorded by the Lady Inspector, when they were called by the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, and the prosecutrix was medically examined vide MLC, Ex. PW-1/B. Prosecutrix has stated that now she is living separately from her husband, as her husband was responsible for belatedly lodging the report. Prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, has stated that after September, 2006, she had been meeting her parents, her elder sister and brother and she has also told about the incident to her mother, however, in her statement made to the police, Ex. PW8/A, it is not so recorded. Prosecutrix has stated that her husband was her teacher and they entered into love marriage. 13. The prosecutrix has denied that Arti Devi, daughter of the accused, who was doing B.Ed. from Dharamshala, was at Dharamshala w.e.f. 04.04.2007 to 12.04.2007. It is also denied that on 10.04.2007 all the members of the family of the accused were there and prosecutrix and her husband stayed in the house of the accused from 11.04.2007 to 15.04.2007. As per the version of the prosecutrix, she informed her husband about the incident on 11.04.2007 and this fact is disclosed to the police in her statement, Ex. PW-8/A, however, it is not so recorded in her statement, Ex. PW-8/A. She has also divulged the entire incident from 11.04.2007 to 14.04.2007 to the police, but the police did not record it. She has also narrated to the police that the accused came into her room, pulled her towards him and increased the volume of the television. She has also stated that she had informed the wife of the accused about the incident. She has denied that they had taken loan of Rs.30,000/- from the accused to start some business. She has also narrated to the police that the accused came into her room, pulled her towards him and increased the volume of the television. She has also stated that she had informed the wife of the accused about the incident. She has denied that they had taken loan of Rs.30,000/- from the accused to start some business. She has also denied that when the accused started demanding money, a false report against him was made to the police. 14. PW-9, Satish Kumar (husband of the prosecutrix) has deposed that he married the prosecutrix on 04.04.2007. He has deposed that the accused is his real mausa and the accused and his wife advised him to get the marriage registered and he had gone to Gram Panchayat on the advice of the accused and his wife to get the marriage registered. He has stated that on 09.04.2007, the accused asked him to take the prosecutrix from his house, otherwise she would be thrown out. As per this witness, at that time he was at Bara from where he went to the house of the accused to take the prosecutrix, but the wife of the accused advised not to take the prosecutrix from the house. So, he again went to Bara. He has stated that on 14.04.2007, the prosecutrix called him immediately to the house where she was staying and on 15.04.2007, he and prosecutrix left the house of the accused and went to village Bara in the house of his maternal uncle. As per this witness, the prosecutrix on 15.04.2007 informed him that the accused has committed rape on 14.04.2007 and thereafter he told this fact to the family members and they advised him not to publicise the matter any more. As per this witness, the prosecutrix used to cry during night. He has further stated that on 15.04.2007, he consumed poison to commit suicide, but then he was saved. He deposed that his wife (prosecutrix) was very disturbed and agitated and started breaking things/articles and so they shifted to village Harmandir, where he started working as Carpenter with his uncle at Naudan. After 2-3 months he went to Deothsidh alongwith the prosecutrix to run a computer centre. Thereafter, the prosecutrix continued to remain ill and his friend advised him to contact Mahila Commission and he alongwith his wife went to Shimla. After 2-3 months he went to Deothsidh alongwith the prosecutrix to run a computer centre. Thereafter, the prosecutrix continued to remain ill and his friend advised him to contact Mahila Commission and he alongwith his wife went to Shimla. As the Chairman was not available, he procured the telephone number of the Chairman and, later on, contacted the Chairperson at Bilaspur and on the advise of the Chairperson, Mahila Commission, they went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur. After recording the statements of prosecutrix and her husband, the police medically examined the prosecutrix and thereafter, he alongwith his wife went to the house of his wife’s maternal uncle. In cross-examination, he has admitted that on 09.04.2007, the accused, his wife, son and daughter were present in the house of the accused. He has stated that on 12/13.04.2007, he returned to the house of the accused, but the accused sent him with his son towards Tauni Devi in search of work. The accused and his wife did not allow him to speak to his wife. On 14.04.2007 the accused made him to sleep in a separate room and upto 14.04.2007, he could not talk to his wife. He could not tell the name of the Doctor to whom he has taken his wife for treatment. He could not tell the name of the friend, who gave him the telephone number of Mahila Commissioner. He admitted that the Advocate was engaged by the accused at the time of his marriage with the prosecutrix. He admitted that his wife told Prabhat Singh that nothing had happened, as Prabhat Singh started making indecent inquires. He has denied the suggestion that the accused and his wife had given them a loan of Rs.30,000/- and on demanding the money back, a false case is registered. 15. PW-10, Inspector Kamla Ghai, deposed that she recorded the statement of prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ex. PW-8/A, and the same was sent to Police Station, Sujanpur, for registration of FIR. She got conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix vide application, Ex. PW-1/A, made to the Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur, and thereafter she handed over the file to SHO, Sujanpur. She admitted that from 11.04.2007 to 15.07.2007 prosecutrix and her husband remained in the house of the accused. She got conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix vide application, Ex. PW-1/A, made to the Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur, and thereafter she handed over the file to SHO, Sujanpur. She admitted that from 11.04.2007 to 15.07.2007 prosecutrix and her husband remained in the house of the accused. She stated that she had not asked the prosecutrix why she has reported the case to the police after two years. 16. PW-11, ASI Sukh Lal, registered FIR, Ex. PW-11/A, after receipt of rukka, Ex. PW-11/B. He also prepared the spot map, Ex. PW-11/C, at the instance of the prosecutrix, arrested the accused and got him examined after making application, Ex. PW-2/A, to the Medical Officer, CHC, Sujanpur. MLC to this effect is Ex. PW-2/B. He has taken the photographs, Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/D. He has recorded the statements of Veena Kumari and Raj Kumari, Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-4/A, respectively. In his cross-examination he admitted that the marriage of the prosecutrix was arranged by the accused and his wife and they had borne out the expenses for that. It is admitted that it was a love marriage, he cannot say that the prosecutrix was a student of her husband. He admitted that the prosecutrix and her husband lived in the house of the accused between 11.04.2007 to 15.04.2007. He conducted inquiry with respect to the consumption of poison by the husband of the prosecutrix. He admitted that the husband of the prosecutrix had not stated before him that he had consumed poison. He stated that house of the accused is single storeyed house, having two rooms and accessories, and there are houses of other people adjacent to the house of the accused and there is a thoroughfare, passing by the side of the house. 17. PW-12, SI Ramesh Chand, was SHO, Sujanpur. He sent the prosecutrix for recording statement before the Magistrate alongwith ASI Shamsher, who moved the application, Ex. PW-12/A, and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by JMIC, Court No. 1, Hamirpur. 18. The defence examined one witness, DW-1 Yugraj Singh, Assistant Professor, Government College of Teacher Education, Dharamshala, Kangra, H.P. He has produced the attendance record of the daughter of the accused pertaining to the year 2006-2007 about her presence in the hostel of the College. 19. 18. The defence examined one witness, DW-1 Yugraj Singh, Assistant Professor, Government College of Teacher Education, Dharamshala, Kangra, H.P. He has produced the attendance record of the daughter of the accused pertaining to the year 2006-2007 about her presence in the hostel of the College. 19. As per the version of the prosecutrix, on 10.04.2007 the incident took place when she alongwith her husband was residing at the house of the accused (mausa of husband of the prosecutrix). Prosecutrix has stated that she was left alone alongwith accused in the house and all other family members went to local bus-stand in Village Toru (Bari) to see off the daughter of the accused, who was to go to Dharamshala to attend her B.Ed. Classes. Conversely, defence has produced a letter, Ex. DW-1/B, from Government College of Teacher Education, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., which depicts that the daughter of the accused was residing in the hostel of the said College w.e.f. 08.04.2007 to 12.04.2007. Therefore, the letter, Ex. DW-1/B, shows that daughter of the accused, Arti Devi, had not come to her village during this period and there was no question of the family members of the accused leaving for local bus-stand to see her off. 20. The prosecutrix in the beginning of 2009 moved an application to the Chairperson of Mahila Commission and it is on that application the Investigating Agency was set into motion on the application of the prosecutrix. The application was stated to be moved before the Chairperson of Mahila Commission and thereafter that was produced before the Police. However, that application is not on the file, therefore, the contents of the application are not known and could not be unearthed. Similarly, Complaint No. 542, referred in para 35, the same is not on the record. 21. FIR, Ex. PW-11/A, was registered after substantial period of two years. Although, it is settled legal proposition that delay in lodging the FIR in rape case cannot be fatal, if the statement of the prosecutrix is otherwise convincing and there is no component of falsehood in the same. The main witness, Meena Kumari, who was the star witness, has not been examined by the prosecution and this also creates a dent in the prosecution story. 22. The statement of PW-1, Dr. The main witness, Meena Kumari, who was the star witness, has not been examined by the prosecution and this also creates a dent in the prosecution story. 22. The statement of PW-1, Dr. Archna Soni, shows that there was no old or old healed injury on the body of the prosecutrix and it could not be commented whether sexual assault occurred at the time of the alleged incident or not. At the same point of time, PW-3, Veena Kumari, has not supported the case of the prosecution and she was declared hostile. PW- 4, Raj Kumari also did not support the case of the prosecution and she was also declared hostile. Though, these witnesses were cross-examined at length by the prosecution, but nothing favorable has been extracted by the prosecution. 23. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non-consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 25. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons conclusively and beyond a shadow of doubt, as reasonable suspicion has occurred in the prosecution story. 26. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the pending application (s), if any, stand (s) disposed of accordingly.