JUDGMENT A.J. DESAI, J. 1. By way of the present appeal under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the appellant-State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.1.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 by which the respondents-accused have been acquitted for the charges punishable under Sections 366, 354, 341, 384, 323, 506 (2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 2. The appeal came to be admitted by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the issuance of Non-bailable Warrant, the respondents-accused have appeared through learned advocate Mr. Madansingh Barod who has been appointed by the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee and has opposed the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under :- 4. That one Solanki Mitalben Jayantibhai, aged about 20 years, lodged an FIR on 10.3.2014 with Police Sub-Inspector, Kadi Police Station alleging that she is resident of village Rangpurda, Indira Nagar, Taluka Kadi and studying in 2nd year of College at Kadi Mahila College. On 7.3.2014, she had gone to College to give examination and after appearing in the examination, she came out of the College at about 2 O'clock in the noon and at that time, out of the four accused, two accused, namely, Anand B. Vankar and Hiren Gohil were standing near the College with their rickshaw. She further alleged in the FIR that Hiren Gohil was threatening her to marry since last one week and insisting her to run away with him so that they can marry and was threatening that if she would not come, he will kill her father and brother. On the date of incident, Hiren called her near rickshaw and asked her to come with him and as she was afraid, therefore, she sat in the rickshaw. Hiren Gohil sat in the rickshaw with him in the back side and the rickshaw was being driven by Anand Vankar. At Borisana Petrol Pump, cousin of the complainant, namely, Pravin Solanki came on a Motorcycle which belonged to Hiren and from there, Hiren and she travelled on Motorcycle upto Meghani Nagar area of Ahmedabad city. Hiren Gohil sat in the rickshaw with him in the back side and the rickshaw was being driven by Anand Vankar. At Borisana Petrol Pump, cousin of the complainant, namely, Pravin Solanki came on a Motorcycle which belonged to Hiren and from there, Hiren and she travelled on Motorcycle upto Meghani Nagar area of Ahmedabad city. Hiren Gohil took the complainant to residence of his brother Lakhan Maheshbhai Gohil where Hiren and Lakhan compelled her to marry with Hiren. However, she refused. She stayed in the said house from 7.3.2014 to 10.3.2014. 5. When she refused to marry Hiren, on 10.3.2014, Hiren gave a slap to her and caused injuries on hands with iron pipe. It was further alleged that on 7.3.2014, Hiren had physically misbehaved with her. However, there was no physical relationship between them. It was further alleged that a gold chain and earrings were looted by Hiren and School Leaving Certificate, Mark-sheet, Election Card as well as Caste Certificates were also forcibly taken away by the accused. It was further alleged that since some relatives of the complainant were residing in the same area i.e. Meghani Nagar, Hiren Gohil came in a private Car and took her to Gita Mandir S.T. Bus Station of Ahmedabad and from there, she travelled in the Bus. In Sabarmati area of Ahmedabad, her maternal uncle found her and took her to Kadi Police Station where she recorded the said FIR. 6. Subsequent to lodgment of the FIR, investigation was carried out. On completion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Magistrate. On the basis of materials, it was noticed by the learned Magistrate that the incident in question, for which, the offence is registered, is triable by the Court of Sessions Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the case was committed to learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana. 7. The charge came to be framed at Exh.8 for the aforesaid offence against the respondent-accused. Since the accused denied the charges levelled against them, the trial came to be proceeded. 8. With a view to prove the case against the respondents-accused, the prosecution has examined total 15 witnesses and produced relevant documents. The accused did not examine any witness on their behalf. The details of witnesses examined during trial is as under :- No. Name of witnesses Exh. 8. With a view to prove the case against the respondents-accused, the prosecution has examined total 15 witnesses and produced relevant documents. The accused did not examine any witness on their behalf. The details of witnesses examined during trial is as under :- No. Name of witnesses Exh. 1 Deposition of P.W. 1-Prosecutrix-complainant. 14 2 Deposition of P.W. 2-Solanki Jayantibhai Bababhai. 16 3 Deposition of P.W. 3-Solanki Raiben Jayantibhai 17 4 Deposition of P.W. 4-Ravat Rajnikant Ambalal 18 5 Deposition of P.W. 5-Kiritkumar Kantibhai Gohil 19 6 Deposition of P.W. 6-Kantibhai Ganpatbhai Gohil 20 7 Deposition of P.W. 7-Bharatsinh Dipsinh Parmar 22 8 Deposition of P.W. 8-Bipinbhai Shivabhai Parmar 23 9 Deposition of P.W. 9-Dineshbhai Bhikhabhai Senma 25 10 Deposition of P.W. 10-Amrutbhai Kantibhai Senma. 26 11 Deposition of P.W. 11-Rameshji Jayantiji Thakore 28 12 Deposition of P.W. 12-Prajapati Kalidas Visabhai (P.S.O.-Kadi Police Station) 30 13 Deposition of P.W. 13-Dr. Vishwas Brijeshwar Tyagi 36 14 Deposition of P.W. 14-Arvindbhai Becharbhai Asari (Investigating Officer) 38 15 Deposition of P.W. 15-Kalidas Visabhai Prajapati 45 9. The accused denied the allegations put forward by the prosecution when their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code. 10. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the complainant and the accused and considering the depositions of witnesses and the material placed on record, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondents-accused and therefore, acquitted the accused. 11. Hence this appeal. 12. Mrs. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State of Gujarat would submit that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting all the accused persons of the charges. She would submit that when the prosecutrix did not return on 7.3.2014 from the College, her uncle i.e. Senma Shakrabhai Bababhai immediately informed the Police Inspector of Kadi Police Station on 8.3.2014 who recorded the same by making Entry which was produced at Exh.48. She would submit that uncle of the prosecutrix had specifically alleged against Anand Vankar as well as Hiren Gohil creating doubt about the abduction of the prosecutrix. However, no immediate action was taken. By taking me through the FIR at Exh.15, she would submit that it is the specific case of the prosecutrix right from the beginning that she was threatened by both the accused when she was abducted. However, no immediate action was taken. By taking me through the FIR at Exh.15, she would submit that it is the specific case of the prosecutrix right from the beginning that she was threatened by both the accused when she was abducted. She would further submit that the accused had misbehaved with her which establishes the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. She would submit that since the prosecutrix wanted to apply for scholarship, she had taken certain documents along with her. She would submit that the fact of carrying mark-sheet by the prosecutrix has been dealt with by the learned Trial Court as if the prosecutrix herself wanted to marry with Hiren and had taken all these documents. However, it is not the case of accused Hiren and he has not stated anything about this aspect in his further statement. Therefore, these observations are required to be discarded. By taking me through the deposition of the prosecutrix P.W. 1-Exh.14, she would submit that there is no contradiction in her deposition. By taking me through the deposition of the father of the prosecutrix i.e. Solanki Jayantibhai Bababhai-Exh.16, she would submit that he was informed by his brother-in-law who found the prosecutrix at Sabarmati Bus Station and his brother took the prosecutrix to Kadi Police Station so that the FIR can be recorded. Accordingly, the same was recorded. She would further submit that as far as the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix is concerned, prosecution did examine Dr. Vishwas B. Tyagi at Exh.36 who has stated that the prosecutrix has sustained injuries by pipe and is possible by such substance, which is not properly dealt with by the learned Trial Court. She would further submit that the documents like School Leaving Certificate, Caste Certificate, Mark-sheet, Election card etc. were discovered at the instance of one of the accused, namely, Lakhan Gohil which is proved by the Panch witnesses. She, therefore, would submit that the prosecution was successful in establishing the case put forward against the accused and hence, the appeal may be allowed and the respondents-accused may be sentenced accordingly. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Madansingh Barod, learned advocate appearing for the respondents-accused would submit that the prosecutrix is aged about 20 years and she was studying in College, whereas Hiren who alleged to have given threat to marry her was only of 18 years. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Madansingh Barod, learned advocate appearing for the respondents-accused would submit that the prosecutrix is aged about 20 years and she was studying in College, whereas Hiren who alleged to have given threat to marry her was only of 18 years. By taking me through the deposition of the prosecutrix, he would submit that the conduct of the prosecutrix establishes that she has voluntarily gone with the accused. He would further submit that initially, the complainant was travelling in a rickshaw and thereafter, she travelled on Motorcycle with Hiren from Kadi to Ahmedabad. She stayed at the residence of one of the accused who happens to be the brother of Hiren for 3 days. The said house is located at Meghani Nagar. The father of the prosecutrix had admitted that number of relatives of the complainant are residing in the same area. He would further submit that it is not possible that she had no chance to raise the alarm or to run away from the place consistently for 3 days. He would further submit that she herself has stated that Hiren took her at Gita Mandir Bus Station which suggests that she at her own will returned to her parental home. Hence, the story put forward by the prosecution through its witnesses, namely, prosecutrix, her father and her uncle, namely, Solanki Jayantibhai Bababhai and Ravat Rajnikant Ambalal that she got down at Sabarmati Police Station is not believable since prosecution has not collected any material about the same. He would further submit that the cross-examination of the prosecutrix suggests that she did not raise any alarm at College gate, and thereafter at Borisana Petrol Pump from which she had travelled along with one of the accused, namely, Hiren on his Motorcycle. She had admitted in her examination that she herself sat on the motorcycle and at that time also, she had not raised any alarm. He, therefore, would submit that the story put forward by the prosecutrix and her father and uncle is rightly dealt with by the learned Trial Court and has not believed the same. As far as the injuries are concerned, he would submit that the FIR came to be lodged on 10.3.2014 whereas she was taken to a Doctor of Community Health Center at Kadi on 11.3.2014 at 12.30 midnight and that too without any Police yadi. As far as the injuries are concerned, he would submit that the FIR came to be lodged on 10.3.2014 whereas she was taken to a Doctor of Community Health Center at Kadi on 11.3.2014 at 12.30 midnight and that too without any Police yadi. The Doctor has admitted in cross-examination that the prosecutrix has not stated about the details about the injury and place of the injury. He would submit that the prosecutrix had informed the Doctor that she has received the injuries before one hour at Meghani Nagar whereas she had already left Meghani Nagar before more than 24 hours. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed no error in disbelieving the story of the injury which is not of serious in nature. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may be dismissed. 14. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have perused the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, depositions of the witnesses and the documentary evidence produced on record before the learned Trial Court. It is an undisputed fact that uncle of the prosecutrix has informed Kadi Police Station on 8.3.2014-Exh.48 and it was declared by him that prosecutrix is missing from noon of 7.3.2014 and one of the accused, namely, Anand Vankar had informed that she was with Hiren. The girl could not be traced for 3 days. However, as per the say of the prosecutrix-complainant, after completing the examination on 7.3.2014, she was called by Hiren and travelled with him in rickshaw. It is pertinent to note that she had not raised any alarm at that time and travelled upto another village Borisana. At Borisana Petrol Pump, her own cousin Pravin Senma i.e. one of the accused came on a Motorcycle which belonged to Hiren. She herself sat on the Motorcycle and travelled to Meghani Nagar area of Ahmedabad city and stayed for 3 days at the residence of the brother of Hiren. It is also an undisputed fact that the prosecutrix was aged about 20 years and was studying in College whereas the age of Hiren was only 18 years. It is also pertinent to note that she had gone to give examination with School Leaving Certificate, Caste Certificate, Election card as well as mark-sheet. It is also an undisputed fact that the prosecutrix was aged about 20 years and was studying in College whereas the age of Hiren was only 18 years. It is also pertinent to note that she had gone to give examination with School Leaving Certificate, Caste Certificate, Election card as well as mark-sheet. She has not made any clarification that why it was necessary on the date of examination which creates doubt about her intention and the same has been rightly dealt with by the learned Trial Court. As far as the ornaments are concerned, there is no such discovery from any of the accused. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has admitted that she had not tried to run away from Meghani Nagar for 3 days. It is her say that her uncle came at Sabarmati Bus station and from there, she travelled directly to Kadi Police Station along with her uncle. However, there is no investigation carried out by the Agency with regard to this aspect how she travelled from Gita Mandir Bus Station to Kadi is doubtful in absence of any material in support of the say of the witnesses, namely, prosecutrix, her father and her uncle. The prosecutrix is a major girl aged about 20 years. She was studying in College and did not raise any alarm from 7.3.2014 to 10.3.2014 till she found her uncle creates doubt about her conduct. 15. As far as the medical injuries are concerned, the Doctor has admitted that he has not clarified details about the injury nor has stated whether she has examined the prosecutrix with Police yadi or not. She was examined at 12.30 hours at the midnight of 11.3.2014 where she declared that she has caused injuries only before one hour whereas she had lodged FIR on 10.3.2014. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and Others. She was examined at 12.30 hours at the midnight of 11.3.2014 where she declared that she has caused injuries only before one hour whereas she had lodged FIR on 10.3.2014. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and Others. v. State of Karnataka reported in, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , by relying upon several decisions, has held that though the appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence, upon which, the order of acquittal is recorded, however, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused i.e. (i) presumption of innocence unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court and (ii) having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial Court, the Appellate Court should not disturb the acquittal order. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Antony v. K. G. Raghavan Nair reported in, (2003) 1 SCC 1 , has held that unless the findings of the trial Court are found perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings merely because another contrary opinion was possible based on the material on record. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the record, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error while acquitting the respondents accused. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Mehsana in Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 does not call for any interference by this Court. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Registry is directed to return the Records and Proceedings, if received, to the learned Trial Court forthwith.