JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. Cond (CR) No. 69/2017 1. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 84 days in filing the Appeal is condoned. 2. Condonation application is disposed of accordingly. SLAA No. 71/2017: 1. Heard on the question of seeking leave of the Court to file Acquittal Appeal against the Judgment dated 21.01.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in case titled State vs. Bittu Aharwal for commission of offences under Sections 363/376/342 RPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a written report was filed by father of the prosecutrix alleging therein that on 02.12.2015, when he along with his wife were not at home, as they had gone for their routine work and when they came back, they did not find their daughter at home. It was only after they enquired from their son namely, Sunil Kumar, they came to know that the accused, who is none other than the uncle of the prosecutrix, had taken the prosecutrix along with him. It was stated in the written complaint that they, i.e, parents of the prosecutrix, made a search and on their way they found Nani Bhai (grand-mother of the prosecutrix) weeping. She was accompanied by the prosecutrix and they were coming back towards home. On further enquiry, the parents of the prosecutrix were told by Nani Bhai that the accused Bittu Aharwal had committed rape upon the prosecutrix. 3. On the basis of this written report filed by the father of the prosecutrix, FIR No. 10/2015 for offence under Section 376 RPC was registered and investigation set in motion. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was got medically examined. Her statement under Section 164-A Cr.P. C too was recorded. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the statements of other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P. C and prepared the site map. The investigation was concluded by the investigating Officer by finding that accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix and, accordingly, charge sheet was laid in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, who in turn transferred the same to the Court of learned Munsiff, Jammu and the same was ultimately committed to the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu thereafter transferred the same to the learned Trial Court. 4. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu thereafter transferred the same to the learned Trial Court. 4. Charges were framed against the accused, who denied the allegations and claimed to be tried. The prosecution led evidence. The statements of prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Hari, father of the prosecutrix, PW-2 Kamla, mother of the prosecutrix, PW-3, Sunil Kumar, brother of the prosecutrix, PW-4, Nani Bhai, grand-mother of the prosecutrix, PW-6, Raju, PW-7 Chhote Lal, PW-8 Constable Mohd Rafiq and PW-9 Dr. Renu Sudha were recorded. The statement of PW-11 Sajad Hyder, Investigating Officer too has been recorded in the trial Court. All the witnesses from PW-1 to PW-4, who are none other than very close relatives of the prosecutrix, i.e., father, mother, brother and grand-mother did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. They were subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution but nothing substantial came out. 5. As is evident from their statements, the occurrence was denied in toto and the allegation in the prosecution story that the rape was committed by the accused was specifically denied by all these witnesses. However, PW-9 Dr. Renu Sudha in her statement deposed that she has conducted examination of the prosecutrix, who was reported to her with alleged history of sexual assault at 3.00 p.m on 02.12.2015. She has deposed that on examination, she did not find any mark of violence on her body but only noticed dried blood present on her panty. She has further deposed that on local examination, dried blood was found present in the external genitalia and inner side of thighs, lacerated wound 1 cm present in the perineum edges were red, painful and bleed on touch. She finally in her deposition expressed her opinion that there was evidence suggestive of sexual violence seen on the victim. 6. Learned Trial Court after meticulous examination of the evidence and after hearing learned APP and the counsel for the accused, concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by a cogent and clear evidence and, therefore, acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against him. The Judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is assailed by the State primarily on the ground that the medical evidence which came on record in the shape of statement of Dr. The Judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is assailed by the State primarily on the ground that the medical evidence which came on record in the shape of statement of Dr. Renu Sudha, Gynecologist was clearly suggestive of sexual violence to which the prosecutrix had been subjected to and, therefore, the same was sufficient to convict the accused for the commission of crime alleged against him. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, admitted that the direct evidence in the shape of eye witnesses recorded by the Police did not support the prosecution case and the witnesses though closely related to the prosecutrix turned hostile yet he would respectfully submit that there is sufficient substantial evidence corroborated by the medical opinion to connect the accused with the commission of offence alleged against him. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record. 9. Undisputedly, the prosecution case has not been supported even by the father of the prosecutrix, who lodged the written report in the Police Station and on the basis of which FIR was registered and investigation taken up by the Police. The mother-PW-2, brother-PW-3 and even PW- grand-mother, who were cited as eye witnesses, did not support the prosecution version. It is true that the medical opinion has suggested the sexual violence on the body of the prosecutrix but the same is not sufficient to connect the accused with the offence alleged against him. 10. Needless to say that with a view to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. As correctly noted by the Trial Court that the evidence of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and, therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the accusation of rape attempted on the prosecutrix. It would, therefore, be unsafe to connect the accused on the basis of the offence alleged by the prosecution, wherein even the parents of the prosecutrix, her brother and grand-mother have turned hostile and denied the involvement of the accused in the offence. Law is well settled that if upon appreciation of evidence, the two views are possible, the view that favours the accused, has to be taken 11. Law is well settled that if upon appreciation of evidence, the two views are possible, the view that favours the accused, has to be taken 11. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out that the findings returned by the Trial Court are either perverse or based on no evidence. 12. That being the position, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Trial Court and the same does not call for any interference. Consequently, application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.