JUDGMENT : CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J. 1. The present appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of acquittal dated 29.01.2020 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bettiah, West Champaran in Session Trial No. 67 of 2010, arising out of Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2008, whereby the accused persons/respondent nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 and learned APP appearing for the State. 3. The present case i.e. Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2008 dated 08.05.2008 was lodged on the basis of complaint petition, which was filed by appellant before CJM, Bettiah, West Champaran on 30.04.2008, which was sent to concerned police station by exercising power as available under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”). 4. The case of prosecution as it springs from the written complaint of complainant/ appellant that her marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 3, namely, Sujit Kumar Mishra @ Babloo kumar on 25.06.2007, where satisfactory gift was given to in-laws family alongwith jewelry etc. The reception of said marriage was also celebrated. After marriage appellant/complainant joined her in-laws/respondents home and started to lead her conjugal life peacefully. It appears from the complaint petition that the husband of complainant/appellant, who worked as a Panchayat Teacher and he was posted in Utkramit Vidhyalaya, Medraul. After short span of time, appellant/wife came to know that her husband was in illicit relation with one Shahina Naz Praveen working in the same school and when she raised her protest initially it was in vain but subsequently, respondent no. 3 started to raise demand of Rs. 2 Lakhs as dowry, which was denied to pay on instance of appellant by her parents. It is further pointed out that in meantime, appellant became pregnant but out of assault her pregnancy was terminated. It is further stated thereof that on 26.02.2008, her husband left the house and started to lead his conjugal life with said Shahina Naz Praveen at some unknown place. The complainant/appellant reported this development to her father and brother and lastly on 29.03.2008, she was ousted from her in-laws home by retaining her jwelleries and sarees amounting to Rs. 70,000/-. It is further stated thereof that on 26.02.2008, her husband left the house and started to lead his conjugal life with said Shahina Naz Praveen at some unknown place. The complainant/appellant reported this development to her father and brother and lastly on 29.03.2008, she was ousted from her in-laws home by retaining her jwelleries and sarees amounting to Rs. 70,000/-. Her father and brother insisted to settle the dispute but all was in vain. On the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, learned judicial magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after complying the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of sessions as offence punishable under Section 316 of Cr.P.C. was exclusively triable by the court of session. 5. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 during the trial were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 316 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “I.P.C.”) as well as Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of material collected during the course of investigation charges have been read over and explained to accused/respondents, which they did “not plead guilty” and claimed for trial. 6. It is important to mention that initially seven accused persons were charged but due to death of one Indira Devi, proceedings against her stands abated. 7. To substantiate its case prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses, who are : PW-1 Ash Narayan Mishra, PW-2 Shashi Bhushan Mishra, PW-3 Arvind Mishra @ Arvind Kumar Mishra, PW-4 Kauleshwar Mishra, PW-5 Mala Devi (informant/appellant), PW-6 Subhash Chandra Mishra, PW-7 Chmpa Devi, PW-8 Motilal Ram and PW-9 Abhay Rao. 8. No witnesses were examined in defence. 9. The statement of the respondents-accused under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded, after the conclusion of trial, where they denied investigating circumstances and show their innocence, consequent upon, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused through impugned judgment from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved, with aforesaid order of acquittal, informant/complainant preferred the present appeal. 10. Hence the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/complainant submitted that there is consistent evidence on the point of marriage of the appellant with respondent no. 3, namely Sujit Kumar Mishra and said oral evidence of the complainant/appellant was totally discarded by the learned trial court. 10. Hence the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/complainant submitted that there is consistent evidence on the point of marriage of the appellant with respondent no. 3, namely Sujit Kumar Mishra and said oral evidence of the complainant/appellant was totally discarded by the learned trial court. It is also submitted that the proof of pregnancy as stated on oath by complainant/appellant sufficient to suggest that marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 3 but the said fact was also ignored . It is also submitted that police in this case after investigation submitted charge-sheet finding the case true. It is also pointed out that treatment of complainant/appellant was not done in any government hospital rather, by local medical practitioners and therefore non-having of documents in support of treatment is appearing genuine and this aspect cannot be ignored also in view of rural background of complainant/appellant. 12. Learned senior counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri duly assisted by learned counsel while appearing on behalf of respondents/accused submitted that the finding of trial court is not required to be interfered as same cannot be said perverse on its face for the reason that not even a single document/photograph in support of marriage was placed during the trial by complainant/appellant. It is submitted that not even a single document or paper was produced by appellant/complainant in support of her pregnancy. Learned senior counsel Mr. Giri further submitted that prior to solemnization of alleged marriage, marriage of respondent no. 3 was solemnized with one Shahina Naz Praveen who also worked as a teacher in same school on 17.02.2007, which was duly registered under Special Marriage Act on 09.06.2007 and there is no question arises to solemnize marriage with appellant/complainant. It is submitted that several material contradictions surfaced during the trial out of depositions of witnesses, who are none but the relatives of the complainant/appellant, which is sufficient to suggest that no such marriage was ever solemnized with respondent no. 3. While concluding the argument, learned senior counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri submitted that with acquittal of respondents/accused, strength of innocence gets multiplied and moreover when two views are possible, out of evidences, appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the report of Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 . 13. Y.V. Giri submitted that with acquittal of respondents/accused, strength of innocence gets multiplied and moreover when two views are possible, out of evidences, appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the report of Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 . 13. It would be appropriate to reproduce Para-42 of the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in the matter of Chandrappa and Others (supra): “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 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. (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.” 14. It would be apposite to discuss the evidences as surfaced during the trial for the purpose of re-appreciation and just disposal of present appeal. 15. (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.” 14. It would be apposite to discuss the evidences as surfaced during the trial for the purpose of re-appreciation and just disposal of present appeal. 15. PW-1 is Ash Narayan Mishra, who is the grandfather of appellant/complainant though stated that the marriage of appellant/complainant was solemnized with respondent no. 3 but upon cross-examination he stated that the marriage of respondent no. 3 was already solemnized with one Shahina Naz Praveen prior to the marriage of respondent no. 3 with his grand daughter(appellant). He also stated that he never attended Mala Devi in connection with her treatment and even he did not see any paper regarding this. 16. PW-2 is Shashi Bhushan Mishra, who is the brother of complainant/appellant. Interestingly, in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the marriage of his elder sister namely Subhadra Devi was solemnized with respondent no. 3, namely, Sujit Kumar Mishra @ Babloo Kumar on 25.06.2007 and remains silent whether any marriage of appellant/complainant was solemnized with respondent no. 3 or not. He stated that he was not aware about the fact that Shahina Naz Praveen also solemnized marriage with his brother-in-law prior to the marriage of appellant/complainant. 17. PW-3 is Arvind Mishra @ Arvind Kumar Mishra, who is also co-villager and relative of complainant/appellant, who turns hostile during the course of trial and nothing appears materials from his cross-examination as done by learned APP, which may take note as to corroborate or contradict the version of other prosecution witnesses as surfaced during the trial, who supported the case of appellant. 18. PW-4 is Kauleshwar Mishra, who is the uncle of appellant/complainant only supported the factum of marriage by stating that the marriage of appellant was solemnized with respondent no. 3 on 25.06.2007 and she was forcibly ousted from matrimonial home on 25.01.2008 and joined her parental home. He stated that his niece, who is complainant/appellant, namely, Mala Devi remains in her in-laws home for two years. 19. PW-5 is complainant/appellant herself who stated that her marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 3 on 25.06.2007 and she joined her in-laws home on 28.06.2007. Her father paid Rs. 1 lakh to her in-laws. He stated that his niece, who is complainant/appellant, namely, Mala Devi remains in her in-laws home for two years. 19. PW-5 is complainant/appellant herself who stated that her marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 3 on 25.06.2007 and she joined her in-laws home on 28.06.2007. Her father paid Rs. 1 lakh to her in-laws. While she was in her matrimonial home, she developed her pregnancy of three and half months and by that time also her in-laws raised the demand of Rs. 2 Lakhs but in mean time, as she came to know that her husband namely, Sujit Kumar Mishra/respondent no. 3, having illicit relation with one Shahina Naz Praveen, who is also a teacher in said school i.e. Medraul Utkramit School, it was denied to pay on her instance. It is further deposed by her that the accused persons assaulted her by their legs causing her termination of pregnancy and thereafter, ousted her forcibly and since then she is residing with her parents. It was deposed that her husband/respondent no. 3 is on run with said teacher Shahina Naz Praveen and residing at unknown place. She identified signature on complaint petition, which on her identification exhibited as Exhibit No. 1, during the trial. She also stated to give several items as motorcycle, gas cylinders, furniture etc. as gift in said marriage to respondent no. 3 and his family members. 19.1 Upon cross-examination, she stated that her husband is residing with Shahina Naz Praveen. She stated further that she is not in touch with her husband since 26.02.2008. It was stated specifically by her that her treatment was under the supervision of local doctor and therefore, she could not place any documents/papers in connection with her treatment. She denied that her husband/respondent no. 3 solemnized his marriage in court prior to her marriage and said information was given to her parents. She also stated that she has no any papers related with gifts given to in-laws including her husband and further she has no any documents/papers related with Hero Honda Motorcycle. She denied to depose falsely. 20. PW-6 is Subhash Chandra Mishra, who is the father of PW-5/complainant. He also supported the factum of marriage, termination of pregnancy out of assault by respondents persons and stated to give different gifts items including cash to respondents as supported by PW-5 through her examination-in-chief. He denied any marriage of respondent no. She denied to depose falsely. 20. PW-6 is Subhash Chandra Mishra, who is the father of PW-5/complainant. He also supported the factum of marriage, termination of pregnancy out of assault by respondents persons and stated to give different gifts items including cash to respondents as supported by PW-5 through her examination-in-chief. He denied any marriage of respondent no. 3 namely, Sujit Kumar with Shahina Naz Praveen which was alleged to be solemnized on 17.02.2007, and registered on 03.07.2007. 21. PW-7 is the Champa Devi, mother of complainant/appellant, who also supported the marriage of appellant with respondent no. 3 and also supported her termination of pregnancy of three and half months. She also stated that on the occasion of marriage, several gifts, jwelleries, cash, motorcycle etc. were given to respondent no. 3. She also stated that on the date of marriage of her daughter, thread ceremony (Geneu) was also scheduled in her home. 22. PW-8 and PW-9 both are declared hostile during the trial, which not required to discuss further as to find out something substantial to doubt the impugned judgment of acquittal on its face. 23. It is well established principle of law that after acquittal the presumption of innocence becomes double. The proposition of law was clearly enumerated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrappa and Others (supra), as discussed above. 24. In view of aforesaid legal proposition and discussions on evidences, it appears that save and expect oral testimony nothing surfaced during the trial in support of marriage of appellant, whereas marriage of respondent no. 3 with one Shahina Naz Praveen, which was solemnized on 17.02.2007 was registered under Special Marriage Act. There is specific deposition of PW-5 that she was not treated by any registered doctor rather, she was treated by local doctor and having no papers in support of her treatment. Interestingly, PW2, who is the brother of PW-5 stated that the marriage of respondent no. 3 was solemnized with his elder sister, namely, Subhadra and not with this appellant/complainant. 25. Interestingly, PW2, who is the brother of PW-5 stated that the marriage of respondent no. 3 was solemnized with his elder sister, namely, Subhadra and not with this appellant/complainant. 25. It is also stated by PW-4, who is the uncle of PW-5 that appellant/complainant remained in her matrimonial home for long two years but from his examination-in-chief it appears specifically that she was ousted from her in-laws home and joined her parental home on 29.05.2008 itself i.e. just after 9 months of marriage, which makes the case doubtful and as such this court finds no apparent reason to disturb the finding of acquittal as arrived by learned trial court while dealing the case of appellant. 26. Accordingly, there is no merit in present appeal, therefore, same stands dismissed. 27. LCR, if any, be sent back to learned trial court along with the copy of this judgment.