JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh, laying challenge to judgment, dated 30.03.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 1-N/7 of 2011, whereby the accused/respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (g) and 506 (II), read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). 2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 28.03.2010, the prosecutrix and her husband stayed in the house of Tara Devi at village Kafota (friend of the prosecutrix). At about 8.30/9.00 p.m., when Tara Devi was preparing meal in the kitchen and husband of the prosecutrix was sitting with Surat Ram (husband of Tara Devi), the prosecutrix went outside in the field for answering the nature''s call. Suddenly, accused persons came there. Accused No. 2 caught hold the prosecutrix from the arms, while accused No. 1 untied the string of her salwar and committed rape upon her. After committing rape, accused persons absconded from the spot. Thereafter, the prosecutrix disclosed the entire incident to her husband and they left the house, so as to chase the accused persons. However, they could not find the accused persons and stayed in the house of the maternal uncle of the prosecutix at village Shillai. Subsequently, the matter was reported to the SHO, Police Station Shillai. After registration of the case, the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, the spot was photographed. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at CHC, Shillai. The Medical Officer retained vaginal smear slides, cervical smear slide, sample of pubic hair and salwar of the prosecutrix for the purpose of chemical examination, which were later on got analyzed from SFSL, Junga. During further investigation, on 06.04.2010, accused No. 1 produced his pants, shirt and vest, which he worn at the time of occurrence. He was medically examined and found capable of committed sexual act. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as sixteen witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied having committed rape upon the prosecutrix. He was medically examined and found capable of committed sexual act. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as sixteen witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied having committed rape upon the prosecutrix. In a nutshell they pleaded themselves to be innocent. However, the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. 4. The learned Court, vide impugned judgment dated 30.03.2013, acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (g) and 506 (II), read with Section 34 IPC, hence the present appeal. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that it was the accused persons, who have committed rape upon the prosecutrix. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has ignored the evidence, as led by the prosecution and acquitted the accused persons on the basis of surmises and conjectures, so the judgment passed by learned trial Court, which is based upon wrong appreciation of the evidence, be set aside and after re-appreciating the evidence, the accused persons be convicted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the accused persons are innocent, as there is nothing against them which could connect them with the alleged offence, so the well reasoned judgment of acquittal, passed by learned Trial Court, needs no interference and the present appeal be dismissed. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record carefully and in detail. 7. First of all the statement of the prosecutrix is taken into consideration, who has appeared in the witness box as PW-14 and deposed that on 28.03.2010, she was in the house of her friend Tara Devi at village Kafota. At around 8.00/8.30 p.m., when she went out of the house in order to reply nature''s call in the field, accused persons appeared there and while accused No. 2 caught hold her from the arms, accused No. 1 untied the string of her salwar and committed sexual act with her, without her consent. She tried to raise cries, but accused No. 1 put his hands on her mouth and threatened her to do away with her life. After committing rape, accused persons absconded from the spot. She tried to raise cries, but accused No. 1 put his hands on her mouth and threatened her to do away with her life. After committing rape, accused persons absconded from the spot. Thereafter, she returned to the house of her friend and narrated the entire incident to her husband and she alongwith her husband then went in search of the accused towards the direction they absconded. However, the accused persons were not met them and on return, they stayed in the house of her maternal uncle at Shillai. After the said occurrence, she, her husband and her uncle went to the Police Station, Shillai and submitted written complaint regarding the incident to the SHO. In the next morning she was taken to CHC Shillai, where she was medically examined. The Investigating Officer visited the spot and she pointed out the place of occurrence to him. The police prepared the site plan and spot was photographed. The prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, has deposed that before marriage she used to reside at village Nehra in her parental house. The accused persons are the resident of village Dugana and are real brothers. The distance between Nehra and Dugana is about 10-15 kilometers. She further deposed that she studied in Government School Kafota uptill 8th Standard and knows Kamalu, brother of the accused persons, as he used to impart her tuition of maths. She deposed that on the day of occurrence, she went to reply nature''s call about half kilometer away from the house of Tara Devi in the field. The accused persons appeared on the spot after 2-3 minutes, when she reached there. As per this witness, the string of her salwar was not broken, but untied by accused No. 1, whereas accused No. 2 through out caught hold her arms. The rape was committed in doggy position. She further deposed that after the said occurrence, she did not change the original wearings in her house. She admitted that she did not produce the salwar to the police in her parental house. Self stated that she went to the police station in the same clothes. She further admitted that the Doctor had taken into possession the same salwar, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. She denied that she used to talk with accused No. 1 over phone. Mobile No. 97299-03582 was the number of her husband. Self stated that she went to the police station in the same clothes. She further admitted that the Doctor had taken into possession the same salwar, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. She denied that she used to talk with accused No. 1 over phone. Mobile No. 97299-03582 was the number of her husband. She feigned ignorance about mobile No. 98163-39451. She admitted that mobile No. 93556-56110 is also the number of her husband. Again stated that earlier number, i.e. 97299- 03582 is not of her husband. As per the prosecutrix, she has no separate mobile. She admitted that after the occurrence, no injury was sustained by her on her knee caps or elsewhere. The rape process lasted for about 10-15 minutes. They left the house of Tara Devi at 9.30 p.m. and reached Shillai at 12.30 a.m. The house of her uncle is situated at Shillai bazar and Police Station Shillai is at a distance of one kilometer from there. She deposed that after the occurrence, she had not answered the call of nature and she eased out next day after medical examination. She denied that on 28.03.2010, she called accused No. 1 over the mobile. She further denied that she used to talk from accused No. 1 over her own mobile. Self stated that accused No. 1 used to talk with her husband on mobile. She also denied that as her husband came to know that she used to talk with accused No. 1, he then planned to implicate him in a false case. 8. Now the statement of the prosecutrix is required to be gone into alongwith the statements of other material witnesses. PW-1, Surat Singh, has deposed that on 28.03.2010, his wife Tara Devi told her that some guests are coming to their house and asked him to bring vegetables from the bazar. At about 7.30/8.00 p.m., when he reached from the bazar, the prosecutrix and her husband had come to his house. Around 8/8.30 p.m., while his wife was preparing meal in the kitchen and he was sitting with the husband of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix went out to ease the call of nature. She took with her the mobile phone of his wife, as it was dark outside and there was light in the phone of his wife. She returned after about 10-15 minutes. She took with her the mobile phone of his wife, as it was dark outside and there was light in the phone of his wife. She returned after about 10-15 minutes. She put the mobile phone on the door of the house and made a signal to her husband to come out from the room. Thereafter, they told that they will not take the meal and left the house. On the next day, police came to his house and associated him and his wife in the investigation. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that when prosecutrix and her husband left the house, they have not told them anything about the occurrence, but only told that they are going back and will not take food. He further deposed that at the place of occurrence, neither there were any marks of struggle, nor there were any broken bangles. He feigned ignorance whether accused No. 1 was confined to bed due to fracture on his leg or not. 9. Pw-2, Dr. Seema Raghav, Medical Officer, CHC Shillai, has deposed that she examined the prosecutrix, who was brought to her with the alleged history of sexual assault and opined that: General physical examination:- She was conscious, cooperative and well oriented to time, place and person. Pulse rate 82 per minute, B.P. 116/80 milimeter of mercury, chest NAD, CVS NAD per abdomen NAD (no abnormality detected). Last menstrual period 20.03.2010. Most recent coitus with husband was on 17.03.2010 without using any condom. She has not passed urine or defecated after assault. She has not changed underwear since then. Blood stains present on the underwear. Menstrual history:- 6-7 days per cycle regular menstrual flow, she has one child six months old, no external injury present or complained. Local examination:- No signs of struggle seen. External genitalia, no injury seen, no stains present. Per vaginal examination:- 1) Vagina admitting two fingers easily. 2) Uterus normal in size. 3) Slight bleeding per vagina present. On the basis of aforesaid examination, she opined that there is nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse has not been performed. She denied having any signs of trauma. She admitted that on examination of the prosecutrix, it can be said that no violence or force was used. She further deposed that on completion of medical examination, she issued MLC, Ext. PW-2/B, which bears her signatures. 10. She denied having any signs of trauma. She admitted that on examination of the prosecutrix, it can be said that no violence or force was used. She further deposed that on completion of medical examination, she issued MLC, Ext. PW-2/B, which bears her signatures. 10. Pw-3, Tara Devi, has deposed that on 28.03.2010, at about 6.30 p.m., the prosecutrix and her husband reached at her house. At about 8/8.30 p.m., when she was preparing meal in the kitchen, the prosecutrix told her that she wanted to go outside to ease the call of nature. Since, she was preparing meal, she told the prosecutrix to go alone. She gave her phone to the prosecutrix, as it was dark outside. When the prosecutrix came back, she put her mobile on the door and made a signal to her husband to come out. Thereafter, they told us that they will not take the dinner and around 9.30 p.m. they left the house. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that the prosecutrix returned after 20 to 25 minutes, however neither she talked to her nor came inside the house. She simply called her husband from outside and thereafter left the house. 11. Pw-6, Deep Chand, has deposed that on 06.04.2010, accused No. 1 handed over a pants, a full sleeve shirt, vest, which were put in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression ''S'' and taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-6/A. He and HC Sukh Dev Singh put their signatures on the same as witnesses. The seal after use was handed over to him. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that when accused No. 1 handed over his clothes to the police, he was having plaster due to fracture in his leg. 12. Pw-7, HHC Sukhdev Singh, No. 340, has deposed that on 06.04.2010, accused No. 1 handed over his clothes to the police, which he worn at the time of occurrence. These clothes were put in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression ''S'' at seven places and were taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-6/A. On the same day, accused No. 1 was medically examined at CHC Shillai and MLC mark-A was obtained. The samples of pubic hair and underwear, which were preserved by the Medical Officer, CHC Shillai, were also taken by him and the same were handed over in the police station. PW-6/A. On the same day, accused No. 1 was medically examined at CHC Shillai and MLC mark-A was obtained. The samples of pubic hair and underwear, which were preserved by the Medical Officer, CHC Shillai, were also taken by him and the same were handed over in the police station. In cross-examination, he deposed that when he took accused No. 1 for his medical examination, accused was having plaster on his leg and he was not in a position to walk. 13. Pw-11, ASI Partap Singh, has deposed that on 29.03.2010, at about 8.30 a.m., he alongwith the prosecutrix, her husband, Lady Constable Kusum Lata and other police officials went to the spot at Kafota. At the instance and demarcation of the prosecutrix, the spot was inspected and spot map, Ext. PW-11/A was prepared. The spot was also photographed. The statements of the prosecutrix, her husband Ramesh, Tara Devi and Surat Singh were recorded as per their versions. During investigation, on 06.04.2010, accused No. 1 handed over to him a pants, T-shirt and vest, which he has worn on 28.03.2010. The clothes of the accused were put in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression ''S'' at seven places and were taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-6/A. The sample of seal, Ext. PY was taken separately on a piece of cloth. The seal after use was handed over to Deep Chand. Memo was signed by Deep Chand and HHC Sukh Dev Singh as witnesses. This witness, in his crossexamination, has deposed that during investigation he did not notice any marks of struggle on the grass where occurrence took place, nor the bangles of the prosecutrix were found broken on the spot. He further deposed that mobile No. 93556-56110 was of the husband of the prosecutrix and mobile No. 98163-39451 was of accused No. 1, whereas, mobile No. 97299-03582 was of the prosecutrix. 14. Pw-13, Dr. A.V. Raghav, SMO, CHC Shillai, has deposed that on 06.04.2010, on an application, Ext. PW-12/C, moved by the police, he conducted the medical examination of accused No. 1. On examination, the person was found fit for sexual intercourse and there was nothing to suggest that he is incapable of doing sexual intercourse. He issued MLC, Ext. PW11 13/A, which bears his signatures. During examination, he preserved pubic hair and underwear of the accused. 15. PW-12/C, moved by the police, he conducted the medical examination of accused No. 1. On examination, the person was found fit for sexual intercourse and there was nothing to suggest that he is incapable of doing sexual intercourse. He issued MLC, Ext. PW11 13/A, which bears his signatures. During examination, he preserved pubic hair and underwear of the accused. 15. Pw-15, Ramesh Kumar (husband of the prosecutrix), has deposed that on 28.03.2010, he and his wife were in the house of Tara Devi. While Tara Devi was preparing meal in the kitchen and her husband was sitting with him, his wife went outside the house to answer the nature''s call. After 15 minutes, when she came from outside, she signaled him to come out. When he went outside the house, he saw her wife weeping and on asking, she told him that when she had gone to ease out in the field, two persons committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he asked her about those persons and they proceeded to trace them, but they were not found. Then he gave a ring to maternal uncle of his wife and told him about the incident, who asked them to come to his house. Subsequently, he alongwith his wife and her maternal uncle went to the police station and lodged a complaint. Thereafter, they remained associated in the investigation. On 17.05.2010, he again came to the police station to apprise them that his wife had told him that she was having menstruation at the time of the incident and the pad being used by her had fallen on the spot. However, when they went to the spot, no pad was found there. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that they did not disclose the incident to Tara Devi and her husband. He admitted that when police enquired from him about the call details, he told them that he did not know accused No. 1, nor he ever had any talk with him on mobile. He denied that he was having suspicion that his wife used to talk with accused No. 1 over mobile and that is why, he and his wife involved the accused persons in a false case. 16. He denied that he was having suspicion that his wife used to talk with accused No. 1 over mobile and that is why, he and his wife involved the accused persons in a false case. 16. Pw-16, Dharam Singh (maternal uncle of the prosecutrix), has deposed that on 28.03.2010, around 9/9.30 p.m., he received a telephonic call from Ramesh Kumar (PW15) that his wife was raped by two persons. Thereafter, he asked him to come to Shillai to lodge report to the police. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the prosecutrix is daughter of his real sister. 17. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, shows that accused No. 1 committed rape upon her in doggy position, while accused No. 2 caught hold her arms. In doggy position, the knees of woman had to be on the ground and signs of the struggle had to be on her person. However, in the instant case, neither there was any signs of struggle in the spot, nor on the person of the prosecutrix. It is own admission of PW-1, PW-3, PW-11, PW-14 and PW-15 that there was no marks of struggle on the grass in the field, where occurrence took place, nor bangles of the prosecutrix were found broken there. Whereas, PW-2, Dr. Seema Raghav, after examining the prosecutrix opined that it could not be said that any violence or force was used. As per PW-2, there were also no signs of trauma, which is inevitable when rape was committed on a woman. So, in absence of any signs of struggle, the story putforth by the prosecutrix becomes doubtful. It is the case of the prosecutrix that on the day of occurrence, she and her husband stayed in the house of her friend Tara Devi and Surat Singh. However, as per the deposition of Tara Devi and Surat Singh, the prosecutrix did not tell them that rape was committed upon her. This conduct of the prosecutrix to not tell the said facts to her woman friend, seems unnatural and left the house without disclosing anything to the persons in whose house they were staying, creates doubt. 18. Further as per the story putforth by the prosecutrix, accused No. 1, who raped her, was known to her, whereas accused No. 2, who helped accused No. 1 in commission of the rape, was not known to her. 18. Further as per the story putforth by the prosecutrix, accused No. 1, who raped her, was known to her, whereas accused No. 2, who helped accused No. 1 in commission of the rape, was not known to her. It again seems unnatural that how accused No. 1 and 2 came to know that the prosecutrix will go the field to reply the nature''s call at 8/8.30 p.m. and they will have an opportunity to rape her. As per the version of the prosecutrix, she had no relation with accused No. 1. However, from the call details of accused No. 1 and the prosecutrix, it seems that near the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix made several calls to accused No. 1 from her mobile No. 97299-03582, but the prosecutrix and her husband concealed these facts in their deposition and what was the cause behind making calls to accused No. 1, is unexplained. 19. From the above, it is clear that the prosecutrix withhold the evidence with regard to telephonic calls made by her to accused No. 1 on the day of occurrence upto the time of the alleged offence. Further there were no marks of injuries on the persons of the prosecutrix. All these facts makes the story of the prosecution highly doubtful. So, keeping in view the evidence, which has come on record and also taking into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses, this Court finds that it is not reasonably possible to conclude that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Even after reappreciating the evidence, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 20. 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/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 21. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 21. 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. 22. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka , (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal : "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, ''substantial and compelling reasons'', ''good and sufficient grounds'', ''very strong circumstances'', ''distorted conclusions'', ''glaring mistakes'', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ''flourishes of language'' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 23. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 23. Keeping in view what has been discussed hereinabove, the present appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.