JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 169 of 1998 dated 3.4.1999, the State has preferred this Appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of Criminal Procedure code, 1973. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the accused had married to prosecutrix's sister Kantaben five years before the incident. It is alleged in the FIR filed by the prosecutrix that 5 to 6 months prior to the 15.3.1998 i.e. before filing of FIR, the accused along with his wife came to the house of the complainant and that at late night, the accused awakened the complainant and induced the complainant to accompany him, and by walking reached Sandhaliya village and from there reached village Nasvadi by Tempo. The accused took the prosecutrix to various places and he committed intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and also threatened her at the point of knife. With all these allegations, the FIR came to be lodged. After due investigation and having found sufficient evidence, the Police has filed chargesheet before the learned JMFC Court. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the learned JMFC has committed the case to the Sessions Court wherein it was registered as Sessions Case No.169 of 1998. 2.1. After verifying that the accused has received the copies of the Police papers, the learned Sessions Judge has framed charges against the accused and explained him the same. The accused denied having committed any such offence and pleaded for trial. Therefore, trial was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge. During the course of recording the evidence, the prosecution has examined following witnesses: PW-1 Prosecutrix Exh-9 PW-2 Vithalbhai Pratabbhai Koli Exh-12 PW-3 Dr. Nareshkumar Hiralal Acharya Exh-14 PW-4 Dr. Jayshreeben Kishorbhai Shah Exh-17 PW-5 Dr. Ranjit Shantibhai Chaudhary Exh-20 PW-6 Savitaben Shanabhai Bhil Exh-26 PW-7 Mahipalkumar Narendrakumar Pandya Exh-28 PW-8 Mohanbhai Vechlabhai Exh-37 PW-9 Ranjitsinh Nathubha Chauhan Exh-39 2.2 The following documentary evidences are placed on record: Panchnama of the condition of body of the victim and seizure of her Clothes 30 Panchnama of scene of offence 31 Panchnama of the condition of accused and seizure of his clothes 32 FSL Letter 35 Serological Report received from FSL 36 FIR 38 3. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded further statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the accused wherein has submitted that he has not committed any offence. After perusing the evidences and hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charges under Section 363, 366, 376, 506(2) of the IPC. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred this Appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. Learned APP Ms. Krina Calla, while referring the evidence of Doctors, has submitted that before the Doctors the prosecutrix as well as the present accused have narrated the history which reveals that the accused has committed rape and has taken away the prosecutrix, who was minor at the relevant time. By referring to the deposition of the prosecutrix, the learned APP also submitted that in the Chief-Examination the prosecutrix has already supported the case of the prosecution. She has also contended that evidence on record is enough to connect the accused with the crime. She has also submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence, which clearly reveals that the accused had taken the complainant i.e. prosecutrix to village Ankadiya and he had detained her for 15 days and during that period, the accused had committed rape everyday. She has also contended that as per the evidence, the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years and, therefore, even if intercourse was done with the consent of the prosecutrix, then also, such consent cannot be treated as valid consent in the eyes of law. She has submitted to setaside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and convict the accused and pass necessary sentence thereof. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Shah for the accused has submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has not committed any error of facts and law in acquitting the accused. He has also contended that the evidence on record does not inspire confidence and when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution accused cannot be convicted as the entire evidence of the prosecutrix has to be taken into consideration and not only the version stated in the Chief Examination. He has also contended that the evidence on record does not inspire confidence and when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution accused cannot be convicted as the entire evidence of the prosecutrix has to be taken into consideration and not only the version stated in the Chief Examination. According to him, on reappreciation of evidence, the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable in the eyes of law. He has prayed to dismiss the present Appeal. 8. It is an admitted position that in an acquittal appeal, powers of the appellate Court is very much circumscribed as held in the case of Muralidhar @ Gidda and Another v. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730 , wherein it is held as under in paragraph 12: “12. .. .. (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court; (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal; (iii) Though, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and reevaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.” 9. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.” 9. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 , has crystallized the principles to be followed by the appellate courts to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal in the following manner: “70. … 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court's decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations /report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached-one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 10. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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. 11. 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. 11. Further, 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. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 12. Considering the submission advanced by both, learned APP as well as learned advocate for the accused along with material placed on record, it appears from the record that the prosecutrix has been examined at Exh-9. It appears from the record that before examining her on oath, as she was shown to be aged 12 years on the date of deposition, necessary ascertainment has been made by the trial Court by asking her certain question and thereafter the trial Court has found that she was competent to give evidence on oath. It appears from the record that before examining her on oath, as she was shown to be aged 12 years on the date of deposition, necessary ascertainment has been made by the trial Court by asking her certain question and thereafter the trial Court has found that she was competent to give evidence on oath. Upon perusal of her evidence, it appears from her Chief-Examination that initially she has supported the basic version of the prosecution that the accused herein is her brother-in-law i.e. husband of her elder sister and he has taken her away on the point of knife and thereafter the accused brought the prosecutrix at village Mota Ankadia wherein she was kept in field and during the 10 days, the accused raped the prosecutrix everyday. She has also contended that thereafter they reached village Vagath and there also the accused had committed rape on her against her will. She has also contended that thereafter she has filed the compliant. 12.1 It appears from the cross-examination that she has categorically stated that at the instance of his brother and sister, she has filed the complaint against her sister's husband i.e. the accused and narrated the fact which were taught by her brother and sister. It also reveals from her cross-examination that she has denied the fact that the accused has taken her away on the point of knife and has committed rape on her. She has also admitted that, whatever she has reported before the Police as well as before the Court, was on the basis of the advise given by her family members. She has also stated that at the time of deposition, she was of the age of 18 years. 13. Upon perusal of the evidence of Vithalbhai, Prosecution Witness No.2 (PW-2), Exh-12, it is revealed that he has produced the entry of birth date of the prosecutrix from the School Register, which is said to be dated 1.6.1987. He has admitted in his cross-examination that generally birth date is being written in School Register as 1st June at the time of admission of the Children, as many a times the parents do not have birth certificate with them and, therefore, the birth date of such students are written as 1st June. 14. Dr. He has admitted in his cross-examination that generally birth date is being written in School Register as 1st June at the time of admission of the Children, as many a times the parents do not have birth certificate with them and, therefore, the birth date of such students are written as 1st June. 14. Dr. Nareshkumar Hiralal Acharya, prosecution witness No.3, Exh-14, who has examined the accused has revealed that the accused has given history before him that since last 4 months he had intercourse with the prosecutrix. He has also narrated that there was no injury mark on his body and he was capable of performing intercourse. 15. On perusal of evidence of Dr. Jayshreeben Kishorbhai Shah, PW-4 at Exh-17, it is found that she has examined prosecutrix and the prosecutrix has given history before her and has narrated that since last 5 months, the rape is committed on her and she has also narrated that she was unmarried. She has also narrated that there was no blood or semen found on her. It is also found during the medical examination that her hymen was ruptured. She has specifically stated that she cannot give any opinion whether any rape was committed on the prosecutrix or not. She admitted that even without intercourse the hymen can be ruptured. She has admitted that there was no sign of rape on the prosecutrix. 16. Dr. Ranjit Shantibhai Chaudhary, PW-5 at Exh-20, in his evidence has stated that the prosecutrix was brought before him for verification of the age and accordingly, he has got the X-ray of the prosecutrix and after getting X-ray of various organs of the prosecutrix, the opinion was given by the Radiology Department. According to the said opinion, the age of the prosecutrix was between 14 to 17 years and accordingly he has given the certificate thereof. He has admitted that Ossification test is conducted for determining the age of the person. He has also stated that Ossification test is not the sufficient evidence for determining the age. He has stated that he has given certificate on the basis of the report furnished by the Radiology Department. 17. Savitaben Shanabhai Bhil, PW-6, Exh-26, who is mother of the prosecutrix has stated that the accused is her soninlaw who has got married with Kanta, her daughter. He has stated that he has given certificate on the basis of the report furnished by the Radiology Department. 17. Savitaben Shanabhai Bhil, PW-6, Exh-26, who is mother of the prosecutrix has stated that the accused is her soninlaw who has got married with Kanta, her daughter. She has also stated that on the date of incident, her daughter and soninlaw came at her house and thereafter he took away the prosecutrix. She has also contended that her son and brother went to find out the prosecutrix and they found the prosecutrix from village: Bhekwadi and thereafter they went to Nasvadi Police Station for filing the complaint. Thus, even in Chief-Examination she has not narrated anything against the accused except the fact that the accused had taken away the prosecutrix. However, in cross-examination she has stated that her daughter and the accused took the prosecutrix for labour work at her own volition. According to her version, as there was quarrel between the husband and wife i.e. the accused and Kanta, the present complaint has been filed against the accused. 18. On perusal of evidence of Mahipalkumar Narendrakumar Pandya, PW-7, Exh-28, it reveals that he has stated that at the relevant time he was PSI on Probation at Nasvadi Police Station and at that time the complaint was given by prosecutrix and after preparing necessary Panchnama, the accused was arrested and thereafter he had recorded the statements of witnesses. He has stated that thereafter investigation was carried out by Mr. R.N.Chauhan, Senior PSI and Shri Chauhan has filed the chargesheet. He has also deposed that he has not tried to get birth date certificate of the prosecutrix and FIR has not been written in his presence. 19. Now considering the entire evidence as above, it clearly transpires that the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution and her mother has also not supported the fact of rape being committed by the accused on the prosecutrix. It also reveals from the evidence that the FIR has been lodged after 6 months of the happening of the incident. It also reveals from the evidence that the FIR has been lodged after 6 months of the happening of the incident. It also appears from the record that according to the prosecutrix, she has filed the complaint at the instance of her brother and sister and she has narrated the facts of taking her away by the accused and commission of rape on her by the accused, as being tutored to her by her sister and brother. It also reveals from the evidence of the Doctor that though the prosecutrix has given the history of rape being committed on her before 5 to 6 months, she has not narrated the fact as to who has committed the rape on her. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, even on re-appreciating the evidence on record, there is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 20. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal it clearly transpires that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and there is no error of facts and law in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him. As such, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is sustainable in the eyes of law and does not warrant any interference. 21. In view of the above, the present Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The Bail bond stands cancelled. R&P should be sent back forthwith to the concerned trial Court.