ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.09.2002 recorded by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for the commission of offences under Section 341, 354, 376, 511 RPC. The judgment has been assailed primarily on the ground that the prosecution had proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt but still the learned trial court acquitted the respondent by appreciating the evidence erroneously. It is also stated that the statement of the prosecutrix has been ignored by the learned trial court while passing the judgment impugned. 2. Mr. Illyas Laway, learned GA, laid much stress upon the statement of the prosecutrix and he vehemently argued that other witnesses examined by the prosecution have duly corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix and in view of the evidence laid down by the prosecution, the respondent was required to be convicted but wrong appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court has resulted into the acquittal of the respondent. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has been acquitted by the learned trial court after proper appreciation of evidence as there were material contradictions in the prosecution case. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. The record depicts that father of the prosecutrix, namely, Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, submitted a written application dated 01.08.2002 with Police Station, Bandipora, stating therein that at around 4.00 p.m., his daughter was coming back from school to her house. On the way, the respondent stopped her near High School Quilmuqam and attacked her. He also tore her trousers and in order to commit rape upon her, he pushed her on the ground. His daughter raised hue and cry and some pedestrians came on spot and rescued her. On receipt of this application on 02.08.2002 at 10:30 a.m. FIR bearing No. 206/2006 was registered for commission of offences under Section 341, 354, 376, 511, 294 RPC and the investigation was set into motion During the course of investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded and the trouser of the prosecutrix was also seized. After the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid against the respondent for commission of offences under sections 341, 354, 376, 511, 294 RPC, before the court of JMIC Bandipora. After the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid against the respondent for commission of offences under sections 341, 354, 376, 511, 294 RPC, before the court of JMIC Bandipora. The charge-sheet was committed to the learned trial court vide order dated 16.10.22002. 6. Vide order dated 13.06.2003, the respondent was charged for the commission of abovementioned offences. The respondent did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Out of 09 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 05 witnesses were examined. The respondent also examined 02 witnesses in his defence. 7. Since this Court is dealing with an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, so this Court has only to determine whether the opinion framed by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent was plausible one and if it is so, then no interference is warranted. In order to find out whether the opinion framed by the trial court was plausible one, it is necessary to have the brief resume of the evidence led by the parties. Since the prosecutrix is the star witness, so first of all this court will examine her evidence. 8. PW-2, is the prosecutrix. She has stated that about two years back the occurrence took place at about 4.00 p.m. she was coming back from her school towards her home. At around 4.00 p.m. the accused was standing near High School. When she reached there, the accused caught her by chest, pushed and threw her down with an intention to commit rape upon her. The accused untied the string of her trouser. She raised a hue and cry and people assembled on spot and she was saved by them. The accused threatened her and then fled away from the spot. The accused abused and asked her to touch her breasts with his chest, to satisfy him. Her father was on duty on the day of occurrence. She narrated the incident to her father who lodged the report in the Police Station. The police came on spot the next day. The police recorded her statement and also seized her trouser which was white in color. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that on the day of occurrence, she was studying in 12th class and at that time, her age was 18 years. The police came on spot the next day. The police recorded her statement and also seized her trouser which was white in color. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that on the day of occurrence, she was studying in 12th class and at that time, her age was 18 years. She was studying in Bandipora Higher Secondary School and 2/4 girls of Quilmuqam were also studying with her. She was never the class fellow of accused and in those days, closing time of school was 4 p.m. There were 5 to 6 shops in front of Higher Secondary School and all the shopkeepers remain in their shops till evening. The names of shopkeepers were Mohd. Afzal, Mohd. Abdullah, Aziz Mir and Showkat. The accused caught her just behind the school premises. There was patwarkhana also behind the school. Her house was situated at short distance from patwarkhana. There is no way behind the school. In the vehicle in which she left for her village from Bandipora, many other passengers were also traveling. It took her two minutes from Bus Stand to reach at the place of occurrence and all the passengers had also alighted. At the place of occurrence. 20-30 people gathered but she did not know their names. She also did not know who else came on spot as she was in unconscious condition. She also did not know as to who took her to home. She regained her conscious the next day of occurrence. Since she remained unconscious till the next day, she could not narrate the incident to her parents on the first day and also she did not know as to who informed her father in respect of the occurrence. She did not get any injury when the accused caught her breast. 9. PW-1 is the father of the prosecutrix. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 01.08.2002 and on the date of occurrence, he was in his fields and came back at about 5½ PM in the evening. He saw his daughter weeping in the house. On inquiry, she disclosed that at 4.00 P.M. while she was coming back to her home and reached near Bus Stop near School, the accused who was sitting there, caught her chest and pushed her down, tore her trouser in order to commit rape upon her. He saw his daughter weeping in the house. On inquiry, she disclosed that at 4.00 P.M. while she was coming back to her home and reached near Bus Stop near School, the accused who was sitting there, caught her chest and pushed her down, tore her trouser in order to commit rape upon her. He further stated that his daughter raised hue and cry, some pedestrians came on spot and rescued her. He stated that he did not file application on the day of occurrence, however, he lodged the report on the next day of occurrence. Report (EXPW-GMM) was in his hand writing and he proved the same. Copy of the FIR was also signed by him. Police came on spot and recorded his statement. Some documents were prepared by police on spot i.e., seizure memo regarding trouser. He proved the seizure Memo (EXPW-GMM/1/2). In his cross examination he has deposed that he was the employee of State Forest Corporation. His house was at the distance of 200 feet from the place of occurrence. He was not aware as to who rescued his daughter. 10. PW-3, Mohd. Yousuf Bhat, stated that on 1st August, 2002, occurrence took place. When the prosecutrix was coming back from her school, the accused was already waiting for her and when she reached near the accused, she raised noise and he came on spot. He saw the accused catching the prosecutrix and on seeing him, the accused ran away from spot. The father of the prosecutrix lodged report with the police. The police came on spot and his statement was recorded. He proved the seizure memo, EXPGMM/1/2. In cross-examination he stated that the complainant is his brother-in-law and the prosecutrix is his niece. Before lodging of the report, the complainant did not meet him. He admitted that the accused was having affairs with the prosecutrix before the occurrence and he wanted to marry her. The place of occurrence is located in a residential area. Many people were present on spot and when he reached on spot, the accused was running away. 11. PW-4, Showkat Ahmad Mir, has stated that on the day of occurrence, he was sitting on the counter of his shop. One person was roaming there. A matador came from Bandipora and the passengers alighted from the same. Many people were present on spot and when he reached on spot, the accused was running away. 11. PW-4, Showkat Ahmad Mir, has stated that on the day of occurrence, he was sitting on the counter of his shop. One person was roaming there. A matador came from Bandipora and the passengers alighted from the same. The prosecutrix was going through a street and the accused came in front of her and pushed her down. He came down from the shop and there was a scuffle between accused and the prosecutrix. The accused got frightened and ran away from the spot. Family members of the prosecutrix also came on spot and then father of the prosecutrix lodged the report. The police came on spot and seized the torn trouser of the prosecutrix. In cross-examination he stated that he did not accompany the complainant to the police station. His shop was in front of the school and on the back side, the house of the complainant was situated. If it is mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the police came on spot on the day of occurrence, then the same was not correct. 12. PW-8-Abdul Majeed HC (I.O.) has stated that he went on spot for investigation and he recorded statement of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had stated that while she was going back to her home from the school, on reaching Government School, Quilmuqam, the accused caught her and pushed her down. He prepared the seizure memo. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not cite any person from the houses shown in the sketch as prosecution witnesses. There was no report of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix. 13. Respondent’s witness Gh. Ahmad Sheergojri has stated that the parties were neighbors and their relations had always remained strained. 14. Respondent’s witness Firdous Ahmad Reshi has stated that the case against the accused was baseless and accused was having good moral character. 15. The perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix would reveal that she was coming from her school and alighted from the bus at bus stand, Quilmuqam and when she reached near Higher Secondary School, the accused, who was waiting for her, caught her and pushed her down. He also tore her trousers and abused. 15. The perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix would reveal that she was coming from her school and alighted from the bus at bus stand, Quilmuqam and when she reached near Higher Secondary School, the accused, who was waiting for her, caught her and pushed her down. He also tore her trousers and abused. She further stated that her father was on duty on the date of occurrence and the next day, her father reported the matter to police. In her cross-examination she has stated that she remained unconscious till next day and she did not know as to who informed her father regarding occurrence and also as to who brought her to her home. The perusal of the statement of the complainant, PW-1, would reveal that when on 1st August, 2002, he came back from his fields at about 5.30 p.m. he saw his daughter crying and on enquiry she told about the occurrence. The statement of PW-1 is entirely contradictory to the statement of the prosecutrix and the contradictions between their statements are irreconcilable. Further the statement of the prosecutrix reveals that 20-30 people gathered on spot but she did not know their names. She further expressed ignorance as to who took her to home as she was unconscious. PW-3, Mohd Yousuf Bhat is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. His presence on spot also becomes doubtful when the prosecutrix herself has stated that she did not know the names of 20-30 people who had gathered on spot. In her testimony also, she had not deposed about the presence of PW Mohd. Yousuf Bhat on spot. So far as the statement of PW-4, Showkat Ahmad Mir is concerned, he has stated that his shop was situated in front of the school and he saw the accused coming in front of the prosecutrix and pushing her down. As per the statement of prosecutrix, the occurrence took place behind the school premises. It also casts doubt about the testimony of PW-4 Showkat Ahmad Mir. Further from the evidence of Pw-3, Mohd. Yousuf Bhat, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the complainant and maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, it is revealed that the prosecutrix was having an affair with the accused and the accused wanted to solemnize marriage with her. 16. It also casts doubt about the testimony of PW-4 Showkat Ahmad Mir. Further from the evidence of Pw-3, Mohd. Yousuf Bhat, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the complainant and maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, it is revealed that the prosecutrix was having an affair with the accused and the accused wanted to solemnize marriage with her. 16. From the evidence brought on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Rather it appears there was a love affair between the prosecutrix and the respondent. The prosecutrix has not disclosed about her affair with the respondent. 17. This Court has gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the learned trial court has noted the various infirmities in the prosecution case. The opinion formed by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent cannot be termed as perverse which may warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction against the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal, no indulgence of this court is warranted. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back.