JUDGMENT : (Maulik J. Shelat, J.) 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 24.05.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Session Case No.166 of 1999. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Section 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under:- 2.1 The prosecution alleges that the victim and her friend were walking to attend wedding at night. As she lagged behind her friends by about 10 feet. At that time, three men from behind gagged her by putting hand on her mouth and dragged her into the darkness and then gang-raped her. Unable to seek help, she returned home and told her mother. Her mother reported the incident to a police officer at the wedding venue, but he dismissed her concerns. Later, when the victim's mother and brother confronted the accused's family, they were met with hostility and threats. The accused's family members even assaulted the victim's brother and threatened to burn down their house. 2.2 Thereafter, two complaints were filed, first before the D.S.P., Vadodada vide Exh.20 and second complaint before the Circle Inspector vide Exh.21 and thereafter, First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with Police station Sinor, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Section 376 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas, including panchnama of scene of offence, collected medical papers, etc. Upon committal of the case to the learned Additional Sessions Court, Vodardara, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Sessions Court, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trust worthy and taking into consideration the testimony of the Medical Officers and considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara has acquitted all the accused from all the charges. 3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Urkarsh Sharma at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. 3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Urkarsh Sharma at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh. 02 against the Respondents - Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents - Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They were tried for the said offences and in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 08 prosecution witnesses and also produced 06 documentary evidence, which are as under:- Sr. No. Exh. No. Name of Witness Nature of Witness Remarks(as per their deposition) 1. 13 Sureshbhai Hirabhai. Panch of Body condition of Victim Hostile 2. 14 Narmdaben Vasava Panch of Body condition of Victim Does not support prosecution case 3. 19 Geetaben Vasava Victim Contradictions in version 4. 23 Bachu Mela Vasava Father of Victim Does not support prosecution case. 5. 24 Manjulaben Bachubhai Mother of Victim Contradictions 6. 25 Suresh Krishnava Medical Officer Age of Victim. 7. 27 Kiran Vrajlal Purani Medical Officer Victim examination, does not support prosecution case. 8. 29 Devjibhai Parmar PSI Does not support the prosecution case Documentary Evidences Sr. No. Exh. No. Name of Witness Remarks 1. 11 Certificate accused samples -- 2. 8 Panchnama of scene of offence -- 3. 9 Panchnama of the body of accused. -- 4. 15 Panchnama of body Victim -- 5. 26 Hospital Report- Age of Victim -- 6. 28 Certificate with regards to injuries etc. Victim Nothing found, does not support prosecution case. 5. Thus, the prosecution had examined the victim, her parents, Panchs, medical officers and other police witness, which according to the prosecution, brought home the charges levelled against the accused in support of their case. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Uksharh Sharma would submit that the findings of acquittal, are contrary to law as per the evidence on record, are erroneous and based on irrelevant material. It is further contended that learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the Respondents - accused and not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record though the prosecution had proved case against the Accused. It is further contended that learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the Respondents - accused and not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record though the prosecution had proved case against the Accused. It is further contended that learned Trial Court has given weightage to the minor omission and contradiction in the witnesses though there was no material omission and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. 6.1 The learned Trial Court has relied on minor contradiction and discarded the evidence of the witnesses, thus, the reasons, assigned by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused, are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and thereby, has committed an error in acquitting the accused. 6.2 It is further submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of all the accused and learned Trial Court has committed an error both on law and facts. Thus, the learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and appropriate sentences for the offences be passed against all the accused by allowing the present appeal. 7. Learned advocate, Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for accused – Respondents, has filed leave note today but considering the fact that present appeal is of the year, 2000, being an acquittal appeal, we would like to proceed further with the appeal. 8. No other and further submissions being made by any of respective parties. 9. We have gone through the impugned judgment, records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India, decided this acquittal appeal. 10. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law as declared by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal. 11. One of such recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka [ (2024) 8 SCC 149 ] has held as under: “39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below: - "29. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below: - "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] " 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, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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. (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." 40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. (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." 40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: - "8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re- appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- 41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material 41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 12. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after reappreciating the evidence on record, following glaring facts, which are noticed by learned Sessions Court, while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered. 13. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after reappreciating the evidence on record, following glaring facts, which are noticed by learned Sessions Court, while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered. 13. We have gone through the record and proceedings, whereby we have read and appreciated the evidence on record. As such, we are not in agreement with any of the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sharma. Albeit, for the following reasons, we are in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court while acquitting the accused. 13.1 The Sessions Court has correctly observed that there is material contradiction between the first complaint at Exh.20 and the second complaint at Exh.21, both given on the same day, i.e., 10.03.1999, by the complainant/prosecutrix herself. It has been observed that in the complaint given to the D.S.P. Vadodara at Exh.20, the complainant had narrated a story that she was going to attend a marriage with her friend on 09.03.1999 at about 9:00 PM, she fell short by 10 feet behind her friends. In dark night, the accused had taken her away and committed rape. It is required to be noted that, in the complaint at Exh.20, the complainant had alleged that all three accused had committed rape. Whereas, in the second complaint (at Exh.21) given to the Circle Police Inspector, Dabhoi, she has alleged that only the accused No.1, i.e., Subhash Jagdish Vasava, had committed rape and the remaining two accused had caught her hand and leg but had not committed any rape. 13.2 So, these are material contradictions in both the complaints given by the complainant herself. Further, it was stated in the second complaint at Exh. 21 that her clothes were torn by the accused, which was missing in the first complaint at Exh.20, which prima facie shows that the story is doubtful from the evidence which are germane from record. 13.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the complainant, in her oral evidence at Exh.19, narrated a different story about the incident wherein she had stated that she went to collect water with other persons and she was alone near the buffalo stable to attend the nature's call. At that time, all three accused came and took her away. At that time, all three accused came and took her away. 13.4 A completely new story has been propounded in her deposition, which is not germane in the complaint given by the prosecutrix herself. To support the story put forward in her first complaint, the prosecution has not examined any of the complainant's friends. It would also be doubtful when the complainant went with friends and was found missing from the place, then the natural reaction of any friend would be to search for the complainant and immediately inform her parents, which was not done so in the present case. 13.5 Further, it has been correctly observed by the Sessions Court that the story put forward in the first complaint at Exh.20 was at the instance of the mother of the complainant, Manjulaben, who was not present at the scene of the offense. So neither the complaint, which was given by the complainant nor her oral evidence proved her case whereby the accused can be prima facie proved guilty of the offense alleged to have been committed by them, i.e., rape. 13.6 So far as the oral evidence of the mother of the complainant, i.e., Manjulaben, examined at Exh. 24 is concerned, it also does not inspire any confidence because of so much contradiction coming forth in her cross-examination. It has come on record that in the examination of the investigating officer at Exh.29, Devjibhai Parmar stated that Manjulaben has never stated that she went to the house of accused no.1 - Subhash Jagdish Vasava, where there was a quarrel between the accused and her son, Rameshbhai. Whereas, Manjulaben stated otherwise in her evidence. It is also observed by the Sessions Court that in the oral evidence of the complainant, she has stated that when she had tried to seek help by shouting, her mother and her brother, Manjulaben and Rameshbhai respectively, came to the scene of the offence and before that, all accused went away. However, such a fact was not stated by Manjulaben in her evidence. It is also very doubtful about her presence near the scene of the offence as nothing has been brought by the prosecution to prove such presence. 13.7 The father of the complainant, Buchu Mela Vasava, was examined by the prosecution (Exhibit 23). However, his testimony did not support the prosecution's case. It is also very doubtful about her presence near the scene of the offence as nothing has been brought by the prosecution to prove such presence. 13.7 The father of the complainant, Buchu Mela Vasava, was examined by the prosecution (Exhibit 23). However, his testimony did not support the prosecution's case. In fact, it contradicted what the complainant and her mother had stated in their evidence. It is unusual for a father to contradict his daughter's claims of rape. This is one of the reasons, the trial court acquitted the accused. 13.8 Now, let's consider the medical evidence on record. Neither the medical certificate (Exhibit 28) nor the FSL opinion supports the prosecution's case. It is important to note that no injury marks, either external or internal, were found on the complainant's body. Although the certificate mentions an old ruptured hymen, such a rupture can occur due to various reasons such as cycling or any other reason as stated by Dr.Kiran Vrajlal Purani in his oral evidence at exhibit 27. 13.9 Nonetheless, Dr.Kiran Vrajlal Purani has specifically stated that Hymen was not ruptured due to intercourse. Even as stated hereinabove, sample of semen, hair and blood of accused were not matched, which were found on clothes of complainant. Further, there is no presence of semen on the genital parts of complainant. Hence, medical evidence does not, at all, support the case of prosecution. 14. Thus, after going through entire set of evidence and its reappreciation as well as keeping in mind the scope and purview of the acquittal appeal, filed at the instance of the State, we are unable to disagree with the observations and findings recorded by the Sessions Court while acquitting the accused. There is no error, much less any apparent error, committed by Sessions Court while acquitting the accused. The Sessions Court has, after examining the evidence on record, would not find the story of complainant believable, having not been supported by any of evidence led by prosecution then acquitted the accused, hence, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. 15. The Sessions Court has, after examining the evidence on record, would not find the story of complainant believable, having not been supported by any of evidence led by prosecution then acquitted the accused, hence, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. 15. Considering these set of evidences on record, above stated reasons and in light of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with scope of acquittal appeal, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.166 of 1999 while acquitting the respondents. 16. Thus, the appeal is meritless and requires to be dismissed, accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the Session Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. No order as to cost.