JUDGEMENT/ORDER : Rajnesh Oswal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 22/Sessions, titled, "State of J&K v. Anil Kumar Sarthi" in FIR No. 43/2008 of Police Station, Janipur Jammu, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for commission of offence under section 376 RPC. 2. The judgment is impugned on the ground that there was sufficient material on record to convict the respondent but the learned trial court has not appreciated the law and facts of the case in its right perspective, which has resulted into unjustified acquittal of the respondent. 3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG representing the appellant-State vehemently argued that the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she was raped by the respondent but despite that the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent by wrongly appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. Brief facts, as they emerge from the prosecution story, are that the father of the prosecutrix-Ashwani Kumar lodged a written report with SHO Police Station, Janipur for registration of FIR against the respondent for commission of offence under section 376 RPC. It was stated that the respondent came from village Chohada about a month back and started residing with his family at Janipur being the son of his sister-in-law. He and his wife were working as labourers at different houses and the respondent committed rape upon his daughter in their absence, who was 12 years of age. She did not disclose the occurrence on account of threat extended to her by the respondent and disclosed the occurrence after 10 days to her mother. The respondent without informing them left the place. His daughter complained pain in her stomach and then narrated the occurrence to her mother on 19.05.2008. On the receipt of application, FIR bearing No. 43/2008 for commission of offence under section 376 RPC was registered on 20.05.2008. Investigation of the case was handed over to Tarsem Raj, A.S.I. The prosecutrix was examined by the doctor and statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as also under section 164-A Cr.P.C. The accused was also arrested and the underwear of the prosecutrix was also seized, sealed and got resealed from Executive Magistrate. Investigation of the case was handed over to Tarsem Raj, A.S.I. The prosecutrix was examined by the doctor and statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as also under section 164-A Cr.P.C. The accused was also arrested and the underwear of the prosecutrix was also seized, sealed and got resealed from Executive Magistrate. The same was sent to FSL for expert opinion. The Investigating Officer concluded the investigation by establishing that in night of 03.05.2008 at about 11 P.M., the prosecutrix went out of her Jhuggi to urinate and in the meantime, the accused who was her cousin and putting up in their Jhuggi also came out of Jhuggi and caught hold of the prosecutrix and threatened her with life. Thereafter, the accused removed her pant and underwear and also after undressing himself, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The final report after completion of the investigation was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 30.06.2008. The case remained pending before the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and thereafter, it was transferred to the learned trial court. The charge for commission of offence under section 376 RPC was framed against the respondent. As the respondent did not plead guilty, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution has examined 08 witnesses out of the total 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution. 6. The learned trial court vide judgment impugned acquitted the respondent of the charge for commission of offence under section 376 RPC. The learned trial court while acquitting the respondent, laid stress on the delay in registration of the FIR, the negative medical opinion and also the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 7. As this court is dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the trial court, it is apt to examine the scope of interference with judgment of acquittal. In N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., (2021) 3 SCC 687 Apex Court has held as under: 20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. under section 378 Cr.P.C. no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) "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, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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. 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." 21. Further in the judgment in Murugesan [Murugesan v. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383 ] relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this Court has considered the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal recorded by the trial court. In the said judgment, it is categorically held by this Court that only in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then only the High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of conviction. In the said judgment, distinction from that of "possible view" to "erroneous view" or "wrong view" is explained. In clear terms, this Court has held that if the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", the High Court not to reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction. 8. In order to examine as to whether the acquittal of the respondent was justified or not being the possible or plausible view, it is appropriate to have brief resume of the prosecution evidence. 9. PW-1 Radhika Roy, in her testimony stated that on 03.05.2008, the respondent raped her daughter in her absence when she had gone outside for stroll in the ground near her house at 8 P.M. as she was not feeling well and when she came back to the house, she saw the accused watching TV and found her children including prosecutrix sleeping in the Jhuggi and on the next morning, the accused/respondent after getting Rs. 100/- from her went away by stating that he was going to Shakti Nagar, however, he went to Chhattisgarh on 18.05.2008. Ten days' after the accused left their house, the prosecutrix complained of pain in her abdomen. She complained again on 19.05.2008 and started crying. She stated her that the accused raped her when she had gone outside the Jhuggi to urinate. Ten days' after the accused left their house, the prosecutrix complained of pain in her abdomen. She complained again on 19.05.2008 and started crying. She stated her that the accused raped her when she had gone outside the Jhuggi to urinate. She told her husband regarding the occurrence in the evening when he came back and report was lodged with Police. The prosecutrix was examined by the doctor and her underwear was also seized vide seizure memo ExT-P3, that was signed by her and a ring was kept on her supurdnama vide memo ExT-P3/1. Her statement was recorded before a Magistrate. She identified the underwear shown to her by the APP. In cross examination, she stated that she had not taken any loan amount from the father of the accused. There was a source of electric light near their Jhuggi and electric connection was also installed in their house which was surrounded by other houses. She used to work in the houses of 7/8 persons from 6:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. and prosecutrix also works in some houses which included house of an advocate and she told the said advocate who advised her to lodge a report to the Police. Her husband works as labourer from 8 A.M. to 6 P.M. The prosecutrix is her eldest daughter whose age is 11 years. 10. PW-2 Ashwani Kumar, who is father of the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix is 13 years of age and she is the eldest of all the children. She had pain in her abdomen and his wife enquired from her about the reason for pain. On 19.05.2008, his wife told him that accused had committed rape with the prosecutrix and in the evening, he went to Police Station, Janipur but SHO told him to come next day and on the next morning, he lodged a report with police that he had got written from a person in the court premises (ExT-P1). FIR (ExTP1/1) was also registered and it bears his signature and thumb impression of his daughter. The prosecutrix told that when she had gone outside to urinate, the respondent caught and raped with her. He and his wife had gone for stroll in a park at Paloura. FIR (ExTP1/1) was also registered and it bears his signature and thumb impression of his daughter. The prosecutrix told that when she had gone outside to urinate, the respondent caught and raped with her. He and his wife had gone for stroll in a park at Paloura. The accused is the son of his sister in law and had come to their house about one month back who committed rape with his daughter on 3rd and on the next day, the accused went to the house of his brother in law after taking Rs. 100/- from his wife. Police came to their house and underwear of his daughter was seized. He admitted the contents of seizure memo Ext-P3 and supurdnama (Ext-P3/1). During cross-examination, he stated that he is a Masson by profession. On the date of occurrence, he and his wife were not present in their house as he had taken his wife outside for stroll due to the reasons that electricity was off, besides his wife was also unwell. The accused was watching TV when he went outside from his house with his wife and when he came back, the prosecutrix was sleeping and the accused was watching TV. His daughter used to work in the house of an Advocate but he did not tell the said Advocate about the occurrence. His wife disclosed about the occurrence to him after 15/16 days. Police had seized the underwear of his daughter seven days after the matter was reported to the police. 11. PW-3 Prosecutrix stated that the respondent is her cousin. On that day, she went outside her house in order to urinate, in the meanwhile, the accused came from behind and caught hold of her. After laying her down on the ground, accused pulled back her both hands, she tried to shout but accused after gagging her mouth committed rape with her. The accused gave threat to her that if she disclosed about the occurrence to her parents then he would kill her and that was the reason, she did not tell her parents with regard to the act of the accused. However, the next day, she narrated the occurrence to her parents. Her father lodged a report with the Police and also she went along with him. At that time, accused had gone to his uncle's house at Shakti Nagar. However, the next day, she narrated the occurrence to her parents. Her father lodged a report with the Police and also she went along with him. At that time, accused had gone to his uncle's house at Shakti Nagar. Her statement was recorded before a Magistrate by the Police and her underwear which she was wearing at the time of occurrence was also seized. In cross examination, she stated that her underwear was seized by the Police on second day of the occurrence. The accused used to work with her father who was a Masson for the last 4/5 months and was living with them during those days in their Jhuggi. She cannot say about the exact time about the occurrence which took place behind their Jhuggi, but it was about mid night and at that time, TV was on in their house. She was taken by the Police to the doctor for her medical examination the next day. The accused pulled her trouser and underwear down and after he committed rape with her, she herself put on her clothes and at that time, blood had come out from her vagina and blood marks were also present on her underwear which was seized by the Police. 12. PW-4 Ram Parkash, Naib Tehsildar has resealed a packet that was already sealed by the Police produced before him by A.S.I. Hem Raj. The certificate (ExT-P9) bears his signature. 13. PW-5 Dr. Anjali Sharma, Radiologist examined the X-Rays of prosecutrix on 21.05.2008 at GMC, Jammu and issued a certificate regarding her age (ExT-P7). 14. PW-6 Dr. Suresh Raina has proved the potency of the respondent and proved the certificate that was issued by him in this regard (ExT-P5). 15. PW-7 Mool Raj, Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu had on 16.06.2008, received a sealed packet with seven intact seals from Police Station, Janipur through A.S.I. Tarsem Raj. The contents of packet marked A was subjected to chemical, microscopic and serological examination and opinion was given in his report No. 44/FSL dated 22.05.2009 (ExTP-ML). In cross examination, he stated that the blood group could not be ascertained because stains were of mix form of different individuals. 16. PW-8 Tarsem Raj, Sub Inspector stated that after the investigation was handed over to him, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (ExT-P10). In cross examination, he stated that the blood group could not be ascertained because stains were of mix form of different individuals. 16. PW-8 Tarsem Raj, Sub Inspector stated that after the investigation was handed over to him, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (ExT-P10). As per the version given by the prosecutrix, occurrence took place on 03.05.2008, however, report about the same was lodged on 20.05.2008 and the father of the girl had given explanation with regard to the delay in filing report that her daughter out of fear had not disclosed about the occurrence to him till 20.05.2008. He had obtained the report with regard to the age of the prosecutrix from the doctor. The respondent was arrested from Chhattisgarh. Underwear was also seized on 05.06.2008 that was sealed with a ring and same was kept on the supurdnama of mother of the prosecutrix vide memo (ExT-P3/1). The sealed packet after its re-sealing from the Naib Tehsildar was sent to the FSL for expert opinion. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. before a Judicial Magistrate and other witnesses were examined by him. He proved the offence under section 376 RPC against the accused. In cross examination, he stated that as per medical opinion placed on record, it is mentioned that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix besides no marks of violence on her body. 17. The prosecution in order to prove the offence against the accused has examined the prosecutrix and her parents. This is an admitted fact that as per prosecution story, the date of occurrence is the night intervening 3/4 of May, 2008 whereas the FIR was lodged on 20.05.2008 i.e. after 17 days of occurrence. The complainant, who happens to be the father of the prosecutrix has sought to justify the delay by stating that the accused had threatened the prosecutrix and because of fear, she did not disclose the occurrence and it was only when she had a pain, she had disclosed the same on the insistence of her mother i.e. PW-1. So far as prosecutrix is concerned, she has stated that after the commission of rape, the respondent threatened her that if she disclosed to her parents, then he would kill her. However, on the next day, she narrated the occurrence to her parents. So far as prosecutrix is concerned, she has stated that after the commission of rape, the respondent threatened her that if she disclosed to her parents, then he would kill her. However, on the next day, she narrated the occurrence to her parents. The comparative reading of the statements of the prosecutrix, PWs-1 and 2 Radhika Roy and Ashwani Kumar respectively, we find that the prosecutrix has no where deposed in her deposition before the learned trial court that when she had pain in her stomach, the mother asked her reason and she narrated about the occurrence to her, which is the statement that has been made by the parents of the prosecutrix, rather the prosecutrix has stated that on the next day of occurrence, she disclosed about the occurrence to her mother. 18. In rape cases, normally much importance is not required to be given for delay in lodging the FIR but in a case where the explanation furnished for delay in lodging FIR is found to be false then certainly the delay in lodging FIR cannot be ignored. At the same time solely on the ground of delay in lodging FIR, the accused cannot be acquitted but if there are other circumstances those cast doubt in the prosecution story, then certainly the delay in lodging FIR can be considered along with other grounds for determining the guilt of the accused. 19. So far as present case is concerned, the prosecutrix, who is minor, has no doubt stated that the respondent who was her cousin, committed rape upon her after laying her down on the ground and undressing her. As the prosecutrix was examined by a Doctor after seven days of occurrence and it was not expected that there would be any evidence of sexual intercourse after such a long delay but nonetheless, the evidence of Doctor points out that no signs indicating the rape or struggle was found on the person of the victim. No doubt, the accused can be convicted on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix but in order to record conviction on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, her evidence should be of sterling quality (Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443 ). No doubt, the accused can be convicted on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix but in order to record conviction on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, her evidence should be of sterling quality (Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443 ). She stated that her underwear was blood stained and was seized by the Police on the second day of occurrence, whereas as per investigation, the underwear of the prosecutrix was seized on 05.06.2008. More so, a perusal of the statements of PWs-1 and 2 i.e. the parents of the prosecutrix reveal that they had gone for stroll as the mother of the prosecutrix was not feeling well at 8 P.M. and after about one and half hour, when they came home, they found that the prosecutrix was sleeping and accused was watching TV. Further PW-2 Ashwani Kumar has made contradictory statement by saying that when he went for strolling along with his wife, the respondent was watching TV and at the same time, he has also stated that there was no electricity when they went for a stroll. Besides noting the above infirmities in the prosecution story, the learned trial court has also considered the judgment passed by the learned trial court in case titled, State vs. Jatin Chand in which also the allegation of rape was levelled by the prosecutrix herein and the accused therein was acquitted as the prosecutrix did not identify the accused. It is pertinent to note that the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent has also taken note of the fact that the prosecutrix herein was also a prosecutrix in the aforesaid case but the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution as a result of which, the said accused was acquitted. 20. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court meticulously and are of the view that it cannot be said that the opinion formed by the learned trial court is not possible and plausible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. The acquittal cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that on the same set of evidence, the view other than that of the trial court is also possible. 21. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.