JUDGMENT : UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J. 1. This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the victim challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2022 dated 29.11.2023, whereby respondent – accused came to be acquitted of the charge leveled for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as under:- 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that, on 21.06.2022, when the husband and son of the victim went to Chapi for selling the agricultural produce, the daughters and one son along with the victim were at the house. Since there was no electricity on that day, after having their dinner, victim and her children were sleeping on cots, which were in the courtyard of their house. 2.2 At about 11:30 p.m., respondent - accused, who stays just opposite the house of the victim, slept by her side and gagged her mouth, and administered threat of dire consequences if she raises shout and thereafter committed rape over her against her will and forcefully. Since her daughter woke up, she started shouting and thereafter, accused ran away from there. Since they all were frightened, they did not tell it to anyone and they informed her husband and son, who came back to the house on 23.06.2022 at night. With a view to see that their image may not be spoiled in the society, they did not initially file the complaint. However, her husband and son persuaded her to give the same, and therefore, an FIR came to be filed. 2.3 To prove the case against the accused, in all 14 witnesses have come to be examined. Nearly 20 documents were produced and proved by the prosecution. 2.4 On conclusion of evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 came to be recorded and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, learned Judge acquitted the accused, as aforesaid. 3. Mr. Kamlesh S. Kotai, learned advocate for the appellant – victim, submitted that when forceful act of rape without her consent is committed, which is corroborated by the deposition of her daughter, who was sleeping beside her, the testimony of the victim is required to be accepted. 3. Mr. Kamlesh S. Kotai, learned advocate for the appellant – victim, submitted that when forceful act of rape without her consent is committed, which is corroborated by the deposition of her daughter, who was sleeping beside her, the testimony of the victim is required to be accepted. 3.1 He has further submitted that in a history before the Doctor, she has narrated the entire story, which corroborates her case before the Court. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the testimonies of the victim and her daughter as also the Doctor. Therefore, he has submitted that an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge is erroneous. 4. Vide order dated 25.06.2024, in the present appeal, Record and Proceedings from the trial Court was called for and it is available with us. 5. Mr. Ronak B. Raval, learned APP, produced a letter addressed to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, Mehsana, by the Legal Department stating therein that the State does not consider it to be appealable, and therefore, no appeal is filed. The xerox copy of the said communication is taken on record. 6. For deciding this appeal, deposition of the victim, which is recorded as PW-4 vide Exhibit-16 is most material and important. She has deposed to before the Court as per her complaint filed. However, her cross-examination on behalf of accused is also relevant. From the deposition of the victim, it is clear that she is aged about 46 years at the time of incident and a mother of in all 5 children. As admitted by her in the deposition that the incident occurred during summer. She has to admit in her cross-examination that there are several residential houses in and around her house occupied by different community persons. She has to admit that just from her house a public way is there. She has denied a suggestion that since it was summer time, there were no other persons sleeping outside their home on the road or a courtyard. 6.1 It is further admitted in her cross-examination that accused is known to her prior to the incident. 6.2 She has admitted in her cross-examination that 2 years before the incident, she had love affair with the accused. 6.1 It is further admitted in her cross-examination that accused is known to her prior to the incident. 6.2 She has admitted in her cross-examination that 2 years before the incident, she had love affair with the accused. Though she has admitted that on the date of incident, her husband was to go outside the village but she denied the suggestion that she called the accused at her house. Despite her assertion that she attempted to get rid of the accused, she had to admit that there are no signs of any forceful act done by the accused and she has neither even resisted to the forceful act of the accused nor in that attempt, caused injury either to the accused or torn off his clothes. Though she has stated in her deposition that there was minor scuffle between her and the accused when the accused attempted forceful physical relation with her but stated that her children did not wake up. 6.3 She has further admitted in her cross-examination that from the date of incident even till the complaint is filed, she has not received any treatment in any hospital. She has further admitted that even on the next day, she has not informed the Police about the incident. She has admitted that she along with the accused have clicked photographs in the mobile phone. However, when three photographs vide Mark – 18/1 to 18/3 were shown to her, clicked in the mobile phone, after looking at the photographs, she denied her face to be in the said photographs. 6.4 Her deposition to the effect that because of commotion, her daughter – Komal woke up and started shouting but no one gathered there pursuant thereto on hearing her shout. 6.5 Considering her overall deposition, it appears that she is aged about 46 years and a mother of 5 children. Since the accused is staying just opposite her house, she might have developed relationship with him, which is admitted by her in the cross-examination that since last 2 years to the date of incident she is in a love relationship with him. Further admission in her deposition reflects that the date on which the incident occurred, she was knowing that her husband is to go out of the village for two days. Further admission in her deposition reflects that the date on which the incident occurred, she was knowing that her husband is to go out of the village for two days. If at all such an incident occurred in a thickly populated locality, in summer time, where village people sleep outside their houses on the courtyard or the roadside, if any forceful act, as pleaded by the victim and raising of shouts by her daughter, would certainly have been noticed by neighbors sleeping outside the house. Despite her admission in the cross-examination that there are several houses in a row and they used to sleep outside the house in summer time, it may not happen that no one noticed such incident despite hue and cry raised by her daughter, if any so called incident of rape is committed, as claimed by the victim is committed. 6.6 Considering her age and the relationship, which is admitted, as also clicking of photographs together in the mobile phone, which is admitted by her in the crossexamination, leads to only conclusion that it is voluntary relationship between the two and even if the said forceful act of rape as claimed, is committed, it is having no truth therein, in view of the entire deposition of the victim herself. 6.7 Not only that, if at all such an incident has occurred, if not on the same day, a day after or on the date on which her husband came back, an FIR could have been filed if at all such offence is committed. However, no such FIR has come to be filed for more than 5 days, as coming out from the deposition. 6.8 If from the deposition of the victim, offence cannot be said to have been committed, even if it is corroborated by deposition of her daughter, the same is of no use. 6.9 Stating before the Doctor in the form of history, what she complained of before the Police, that too, subsequent to the filing of the FIR will also not come to her rescue. The very story that she along with her children were sleeping outside the house when there are several other neighbors also sleeping there, it eliminates the theory of accused having committing such offence, that too, at 11:30 p.m. when they were sleeping outside. 7. The very story that she along with her children were sleeping outside the house when there are several other neighbors also sleeping there, it eliminates the theory of accused having committing such offence, that too, at 11:30 p.m. when they were sleeping outside. 7. Considering the deposition of daughter of the victim, who is examined as PW-9, Exhibit-31, she has a different story to tell. 7.1 On accused committing the offence, as per the deposition of PW-9, her mother raised hue and cry, whereas the victim herself deposed to before the Court that her mouth was gagged because of which she was unable to raise shouts. 7.2 If the deposition of the daughter of the victim is to be believed, because of kick-blow by her mother in an attempt to get rid of the accused, she woke up and noticed that accused ran away with little clothes on the body and he was caught hold by them but he managed to escape, which is never deposed to by the victim herself anywhere. 7.3 Not only the conduct of the victim but the deposition of the daughter – PW-9 also does not inspire confidence for the reason that, if anyone of them had raised hue and cry, person sleeping outside, who have their residential accommodation just besides the victim and the accused, may have woken up and intervened. However, nothing has happened, as deposed to by the victim as also her daughter. That cuts from the root, the story propounded by victim as also her daughter that they raised hue and cry and despite that no one came to their rescue. 8. Deposition of husband of the victim – PW-10 may not be that relevant, as he was not present when the alleged incident occurred. However, he derived that knowledge from the victim herself about the incident. Husband of the victim had to admit that on the date of incident or at that night, neither victim nor anyone else had called him or his son. The said conduct appears to be unnatural. Not only that, when husband of the victim came back home, for two days, no such complaint of the incident is filed, which creates doubt about the incident having occurred in the manner in which it is stated to be so. 9. The said conduct appears to be unnatural. Not only that, when husband of the victim came back home, for two days, no such complaint of the incident is filed, which creates doubt about the incident having occurred in the manner in which it is stated to be so. 9. We have gone through the entire judgment and order of acquittal as also the Record and Proceedings, which is called for. 9.1 Learned Judge, while recording an order of acquittal, examined in detail all the depositions as also the documents produced. He has assigned good reasons for recording an order of acquittal after examining, in detail, the depositions of the witnesses and opined that considering the conduct of the victim appears to be a case of consent for the physical relationship and not a case of rape, as alleged. 10. Considering the same, we see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Judge while acquitting the accused. We may not further elaborate the principles for entertaining acquittal appeal, suffices it to say that, in view of the evidence brought on record, that too, by way of crossexamination of the victim admitting that she is having love relationship with the accused since last 2 years prior to the date of incident and other circumstances, if read together, calls for no interference in this acquittal appeal. Hence, we dismiss the same. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.