JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-original complainant, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07-09-2023 passed by Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in sessions case No.77 of 2021, whereby learned Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under section 376(2), 450(2), 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as IPC). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 14-01-2021 on the day of ‘Utarayan’, the complainant was present at her house and her husband went to the pan shop and the father-in-law, mother-in-law went to the village Uvarsa for a ritual purpose. Noticing that the complainant was alone at the house around 11:00 a.m., the accused entered into the house in the courtyard, the complainant was taking her lunch and at that time by holding her hand accused took her inside the house and offence of rape was committed. Threats were administered that, if this offence is disclosed to anyone then he would kill her son and husband, therefore the complainant did not disclose the offence to her family members. 2.1. After 2 days again on 16-01-2021 around 1:00 a.m. when the complainant was sleeping at the last room situated in the house and her husband was sleeping in the middle room, taking the advantage of the door which was open, again the respondent entered into the house and slept with the complainant and once again the respondent-accused had made sexual intercourse with the complainant and on shouting, the husband woke up and called the brother-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law and the accused was caught and taken out of the house, however he ran away from the place. 2.2. Thereafter when the complainant was doing her household work in the house, threats were administered by the respondent-accused that if any complaint would be filed, then her life would be ruined and the complainant would face dire consequences. On providing courage by the other family members, particularly her mother and the uncle-in-law, a complaint came to be filed before Kadi Police Station being I-CR.No.17 of 2021 for the alleged offences. 3. On setting criminal law in motion, investigation was carried out and after collecting the material, a charge-sheet came to be submitted before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadi on 24-03-2021 and the same was numbered as criminal case No.225 of 2021. 3. On setting criminal law in motion, investigation was carried out and after collecting the material, a charge-sheet came to be submitted before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadi on 24-03-2021 and the same was numbered as criminal case No.225 of 2021. As the case is triable by the learned Court of Sessions, it was committed to the learned Sessions Court and thereafter charge was framed below Exh.4, wherein accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and produced 27 documentary evidence. 4. On filing the closing pursis below Exh. 57, the statement under section 313 was recorded wherein the accused pleaded innocent and stated that false case is filed. Thereafter on hearing the arguments of the prosecution and after examining the evidence which was produced, learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from alleged charges which is subject matter of the appeal. 5. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Prajapati for the appellant- original complainant and learned APP Ms.Vrunda Shah for the State. Learned APP Ms.Shah submitted that legal department has taken decision not to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order of the acquittal. 5.1. Learned Advocate Mr.Prajapati for the appellant- original complainant has submitted that, learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence placed on record by the prosecution in proper perspective without giving proper weightage to the material evidence produced in support the case of the prosecution, learned trial court has acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges. 5.2. Learned Advocate Mr.Prajapati submits that, the case of the prosecution was supported by all witnesses who stated in their testimony that accused entered into the house and when he was caught by the family members he ran away from the place. Learned Advocate submits that, it is settle law that judgment and order of conviction can be based also on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix if found trustworthy, however though the consistence evidence was given by the prosecutrix in her testimony, learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the prosecution and acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges. 5.3. Learned Advocate Mr.Prajapati submits that, minor discrepancies were given much weight-age by the learned Trial Court, therefore also the judgment and order of acquittal is required to be interfered with and the appeal is required to be allowed. 6. 5.3. Learned Advocate Mr.Prajapati submits that, minor discrepancies were given much weight-age by the learned Trial Court, therefore also the judgment and order of acquittal is required to be interfered with and the appeal is required to be allowed. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant, first of all if the material evidence of the prosecutrix is examined which was recorded below Exh.11, then it comes on record during her chief examination that, her marriage was solemnized with Maheshji Vaghaji Thakor and out of wedlock one son born namely Manish. She is staying separately with her husband from mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in- law. Accused used to harass the proscutrix when she was visiting the fields and forcing her to talk with him and to maintain love relations with him. On the day of Utarayan, when she was alone at the house during night hours around 1:00 a.m., the accused came into the house and slept with the prosecutrix on her cot. The offence of rape was committed by the respondent-accused and when the husband woke up, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law who were sleeping in the adjoining house were called, as they arrived the accused ran away from the place and uncle-in-law namely Thakor Saluji Shankarji was called by the husband and informed with regard to the offence, thereafter the accused administered threats that image of the prosecutrix would be ruined if this offence is disclosed to the police officer, thereafter she went to the house of her parents and disclosed the offence to her parents. On getting courage from her mother, she went to the police station and reported the offence. 6.1. On being cross examined by the defence, she admitted that initially a complaint was given to the Mahila Police Station, Mehsana and at that time she went along with her uncle-in-law, mother and her husband. After the complaint was given to the Mahila Police Station, no incident occurred. She denied the fact that offence of rape was not disclosed in the application which was given to the Mahila Police Station. In the Mahila Police Station, the application was prepared by the uncle-in-law, officer of Mahila Police Station thereafter called the accused and informed him to extern from the village. She denied the fact that offence of rape was not disclosed in the application which was given to the Mahila Police Station. In the Mahila Police Station, the application was prepared by the uncle-in-law, officer of Mahila Police Station thereafter called the accused and informed him to extern from the village. It is admitted that initially an application before Kadi Police Station was given with regard to maintaining peace and for that a surety bond was taken from the respondent- accused. After 1.5 to 2 months from the date of application which was given to the Kadi Police Station, this FIR was lodged. At the time of lodging of FIR she was staying at the house of her parents at Suraj village. She states that she is staying in a joint family alongwith mother-in-law and adjoining to her house her brother-in-law is residing, her sister-in-law is her real sister. The narration of the house is described by her, where she stated that first courtyard i.e. “osari” is situated, thereafter two rooms are there. 6.2. On the day of incident, husband reached home at 12:00 O’Clock. She further stated that there was no door between the last room and the room where the husband was sleeping, there is only one way to enter into the house. That, due to the problems of her husband they were not bolting the door from inside. No FIR was given on the day of incident, at the time of incident her husband was present in the house. After 15 days of FIR there was marriage of the accused and invitation card was also distributed in the village. They decided that the accused should not marry and therefore there was quarrel between them in their house. From the day of Utarayan till the date of FIR, she was at the house of her parents. She reached the Police Station directly from her parent’s house. At the police station her uncle-in-law, father-in-law, her husband and mother were accompanying her. The FIR was lodged after 25 days of Utarayan. 6.3. Alongwith this evidence, the complaint which was recorded by the prosecutrix is produced below Exh.35 wherein she states that there was love relation between the accused and the prosecutrix prior to 2 years and after birth of son, she refused to maintain the relation with the accused. The FIR was lodged after 25 days of Utarayan. 6.3. Alongwith this evidence, the complaint which was recorded by the prosecutrix is produced below Exh.35 wherein she states that there was love relation between the accused and the prosecutrix prior to 2 years and after birth of son, she refused to maintain the relation with the accused. In addition to the aforesaid facts, she reiterated the incident which was deposed during her chief examination. 7. Next witness who is an important witness was examined by the prosecution is the sister-in-law and her own sister below Exh.9 namley Shobhaben Thakor. This witness was declared hostile on the ground that after removing the cloths what has been done by the accused is not in the knowledge of this witness. She admits that in the police statement which was recorded on 08-01-2021, it was stated by her that the victim has disclosed the offence to her with regard to the rape which was committed on 14- 01-2021 and 16-01-2021. 7.1. That during cross examination, it reveals that there was strain relation between the victim and her husband and frequently they were quarreling. She admits that her mother-in-law and father-in-law are staying with her, their house is surrounded by residential premises and before entering in the house, there is one iron door in the Osari, there is one way to enter into the house and house is consisting of two rooms. The uncle-in-law namely Thakor Saluji Shankarji is staying 2 kms away from the house of the prosecutrix and the uncle-in-law used to take all the decisions . Uncle-in-law is well aware of the police work as well as having experience of lodging complaint. After Utarayan, the prosecutrix was sent to the parent’s house at Suraj as she was not ready to lodge an FIR. Our family members visited the Suraj village for 8 to 10 times to convince the prosecutrix. Before Mahila Police Station, it was conveyed that the accused has to extern from the village, but the accused denied and conveyed that “I will not leave the village” and the application was given by the prosecutrix against the accused before the Kadi Police Station. The surety bond was executed with regard to maintaining peace by the accused before the Kadi Police Station. The surety bond was executed with regard to maintaining peace by the accused before the Kadi Police Station. Police had only asked my name and I did not disclose any facts with regard to the incident in my statement. 8. Similar depositions were made by the mother-in-law below Exh.30 wherein also she admit that there were strain relations between the prosecutrix and her husband. This witness has also reiterated the facts which are mentioned by the earlier witnesses. Uncle-in-law was examined below Exh.8, the husband was examined below Exh.26 and the brother-in-law was examined below Exh.27. 9. From the above evidences it comes on record that initially the application was given before Mahila Police Station by the prosecutrix and at that time, understanding was made that the accused would leave the village, thereafter the accused declined for that. On the application a report was submitted by the Mahila Police Station that no offence is committed, thereafter the prosecutrix was sent to the parent’s house at Suraj village. Initially she refused to lodge an FIR, therefore a condition was imposed that unless and until FIR would be lodged by her she would not be taken back to the house therefore she was agreed to lodge an FIR. After registration of FIR she was brought back to the house of the husband. When the FIR was lodged, the invitation cards for marriage of the accused were distributed and with a view that marriage of the accused may not solemnize, the FIR was filed. The investigating officer was examined below Exh.45, who admits in the cross examination that the FIR was lodged after delay of 25 days, no explanation was offered in the FIR about the delay. It is diclosed that accused and the prosecutrix were having love relations and no incident on the day of Utarayan was mentioned in the FIR. 10. The prosecution has also examined the medical officer below Exh.8 namely Dr.Vinit Rajul Vaishnav, below Exh.13, who admit that offence on 16-01-2021 was not disclosed. Prosecutrix was examined after one month from the date of incident and the accused was examined by the medical officer whose evidence was recorded below Exh.13, however nothing adverse was established from this evidence. 11. The prosecution has also examined the medical officer below Exh.8 namely Dr.Vinit Rajul Vaishnav, below Exh.13, who admit that offence on 16-01-2021 was not disclosed. Prosecutrix was examined after one month from the date of incident and the accused was examined by the medical officer whose evidence was recorded below Exh.13, however nothing adverse was established from this evidence. 11. Considering the over all circumstance and examining the record and proceedings thoruoughly, the certain undisputed facts emerged during trial (i) there was love relations between the prosecutrix and the accused, (ii) marriage of the accused was fixed, (iii) sexual relation which was alleged to have been made, was with the consent of the prosecutrix, (iv) when the husband woke up he called other family members (v) initially the application was given before Mahila Police Station wherein it was agreed that accused would leave the village, but thereafter accused denied for the same, (vi) again an application was given without disclosing offence of rape before the Kadi police Station where a surety bond was taken from the accused (vii) the complainant was sent to her parent’s house from the day of Utarayan as she was not ready to lodge an FIR against the accused, (viii) after she was convinced at her parental house by her mother and uncle-in-law, she was brought back to her matrimonial house and the FIR was lodged, (ix) there was strain relations between the husband and the prosecutrix, as the husband was doubting on the illicit relation of the prosecutrix and the accused, (x) it further comes on the record that there was a delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR without offering any plausible explanation. 12. Learned trial court has also taken into consideration various contradictions and the omissions in the evidence of the prosecutrix. As in the complaint, date and time of offence is mentioned as 11 O’Clock on 14-01-2021 and during night hours around 1 O’Clock on 16-01-2021. However, in testimony recorded before the learned trial court, she refers the time and date of the incident i.e. night hours 1 O’Clock on 14-01-2021. In the history recorded before the Doctor also prosecutrix disclosed the offence on 14-01-2021 at night hours around 1 O’Clock. Therefore learned trial court rightly disbelieved the creditworthiness of evidence of the witness. 13. However, in testimony recorded before the learned trial court, she refers the time and date of the incident i.e. night hours 1 O’Clock on 14-01-2021. In the history recorded before the Doctor also prosecutrix disclosed the offence on 14-01-2021 at night hours around 1 O’Clock. Therefore learned trial court rightly disbelieved the creditworthiness of evidence of the witness. 13. This court has considered the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein the general principles were laid down regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against an order of the acquittal, which are reproduced hereinbelow: “(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, 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 sufiicient 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 emphasize 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 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.” 14. Bearing in mind the above principle as well as examining the record, more particularly evidence of the prosecutrix in its entirety, this Court comes to the conclusion that decision rendered by the learned trial court is only possible and plausible views and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Bearing in mind the above principle as well as examining the record, more particularly evidence of the prosecutrix in its entirety, this Court comes to the conclusion that decision rendered by the learned trial court is only possible and plausible views and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. In view of the same, this court did not find any reasons to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. 15. Hence this appeal is required to be dismissed.