JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT) 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-1), Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Session Case No.01 of 2002. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case read as under:- 2.1 The prosecution alleges that on 31.12.2000/2001 at around 2:15, the accused lured and kidnapped the minor victim creating an impression to marry and had taken her away to Kasandra Village at place of one Manubhai and raped her, resulting into an offence punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. 2.2 Thereafter, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 02.01.2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas including panchnama of scene of offence, panchnama of clothes, scene of offence, etc. Upon completion of the investigation and upon committal of the case to the Trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, 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. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges. 3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Utkarsh 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 Trial Judge, framed charges vide Exh. 2 against the Respondent - Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondent - Accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses. 4. Learned Trial Judge, framed charges vide Exh. 2 against the Respondent - Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondent - Accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. He was tried for the said offences and in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 10 prosecution witnesses and also produced 9 documentary evidence, which are as under:- PW No. Exh-No. Particulars and details 1 13 Rakshaben Vijaykumar- Teacher deposes with regards to age and school leaving certificate. 2 16 Amratbhai Khushalbhai-Complainant- his version is contradicted by the victim and not supported by independent witnesses. 3 18 Jeevanbhai Atmaram- Hostile 4 19 Manubhai Mangadbhai- does not support prosecution case 5 20 Shakriben Magalbhai- does not support prosecution case. 6 21 Aiyub Abbasbhai- does not support prosecution case. 7 23 Sonalben Amratbhai-Victim- has contradictions with father’s version and also original version before police, has married subsequently and denied letters, photo etc., 8 31 Khemchandbhai Shankarbhai- Panch 9 37 Pravinbhai Maganbhai-Panch 10 44A Manilal Mangaldas-Supports and endorses the investigation done by Mr.Jadeja-Sr.PI. Documentary Evidences Sr.No. Exh.No. Particulars 1. 6 to 12 FSL formalities and report(Pg.217- 226) 2. 14 School leaving certificate 3. 17 Complaint 4. 24 Photographs 5. 25 Navdeep Colour Bill of photographs 6. 26 Photograph 7. 36 Panchnama of Clothes of accused 8. 43 Panchnama of Girl’s clothes 9. 48 Injury Certificate 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would submit that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law in evidence on record and the findings, recorded by the Trial Court, are erroneous and based on irrelevant material. 5.1 He would further submit that learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondent - accused and has not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record, though the prosecution had proved its case against the accused and learned Trial Court has given weightage to the minor omission and contradiction in the witnesses though there was no any material omission and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. 5.2 Learned APP would submit that the victim was a minor girl, who was taken away from legal custody of her father, thereby, accused has committed an offence under Section 363 and 366 of I.P.C. He would further submit that prosecution has able to prove that she was minor at the time of offence but the Trial Court has wrongly not believed her School Leaving Certificate by which, it has been proved that victim was minor. 5.3 Learned APP further submit that when victim has deposed that accused had committed rape on her then trial Court ought not to have disbelieved it by placing reliance upon alleged love letters. 5.4 Learned APP would submit that considering nature of offence, even if some minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution, the same may not be a ground of acquittal. 5.5 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. It is further submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused and learned Trial Court has committed an error both on law and facts. 5.6 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 the accused and he urged this Court to allow the captioned appeal. 6. Per contra, learned advocate, Mr.Pratik B. Barot appearing for the accused has vehemently opposed the appeal contenting, inter alia, that persecution has miserably failed to prove charges levelled against accused. 6.1 He would further contended that the entire story narrated by the prosecution is a concocted one and the witnesses does not support the case of prosecution. He would further submit that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and having found various anomalies in evidence of prosecution. 6.2 He would further submit that in a case of acquittal, there would be a total presumption of innocence in favour of accused and as per such legal position of law and criterias laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding appeal against order of acquittal, this Court may not disturb the order of acquittal. 6.2 He would further submit that in a case of acquittal, there would be a total presumption of innocence in favour of accused and as per such legal position of law and criterias laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding appeal against order of acquittal, this Court may not disturb the order of acquittal. Thus, the learned Trial Court has correctly acquitted the accused so he has requested this Court not to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 7. We have gone through the records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India while deciding acquittal appeal, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal. 8. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal. 9. One of the 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 Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier 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. (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. 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. 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.” 10. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after appreciating the evidence on record, following glaring facts, which are noticed by learned Sessions Court, while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered while deciding the present appeal. 11. We have gone through the impugned judgment and reappreciated entire sets of evidence. We have minutely gone through the impugned judgment as well as oral and documentary evidence produced on record. 12. It appears that there was a love affair between the accused and the prosecutrix, which is born out from complaint at exhibit 17 filed by father of the victim as well as letters written by the victim to the accused on record. We have also gone through oral deposition of victim at exhibit 23, wherein she has admitted that she had a love affair with accused and also admitted letters, which were written by her. We have also gone through oral deposition of victim at exhibit 23, wherein she has admitted that she had a love affair with accused and also admitted letters, which were written by her. The Sessions Court has correctly observed in its impugned judgment that after going through the contents of the letter, which are so referred in the judgment itself that whereby judicial notice has been taken by the Sessions Court that the victim was in deep love with the accused. We are also in agreement with the said findings as contents of the letters itself suggesting the aforesaid conclusion. 13. We have also gone through medical evidence of victim wherein nothing adverse found as there is no external injury on her body and there is no other sign of any force. It has been observed in the medical report that she was mature enough for intercourse. The doctor has opined that patient (victim) is sexually active. 14. We have also examined the fact that allegation of rape is not successfully proved by prosecution beyond doubt as the victim could have resisted the force of accused and sought for help as she was taken away from one point to another but nothing has come on record to that effect. This could have also led us to believe that she went with accused with her very will having in deep love with accused. The Sessions Court has correctly observed that assuming for the time being that the accused had intercourse with the victim but the same was with her consent. 15. It is true that later on, victim taken aback by love that accused had committed rape on her because it has on record that after this incident, she got married with another person namely, Suresh Mangaldas Makwana and residing in Aryanagar, Ahmedabad 16. So far as age of the victim is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove her actual age by leading cogent and reliable evidence. It has been so observed by Trial Court in its judgment that as per medical evidence, her age may be between 17 to 19 years. So in absence of any clear evidence come on record to certify her age below 18, charges of Section 363 read with section 366 were not proved. 17. It has been so observed by Trial Court in its judgment that as per medical evidence, her age may be between 17 to 19 years. So in absence of any clear evidence come on record to certify her age below 18, charges of Section 363 read with section 366 were not proved. 17. Thus, the upshot of the set discussion would lead to only one conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused and we are in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by Sessions Court while acquitting accused by observing the Prosecution has failed to prove charges beyond doubt under Section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC respectively. 18. Thus, after going through evidence and its re-appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Sessions Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that the charges against accused are just and proper and we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting accused. 19. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on acquittal, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-1), Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No.01 of 2002 while acquitting the respondents. 20. The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial 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.