JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the original complainant under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special POCSO Judge, Anand in Special (POCSO) Case No. 38 of 2023. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court acquitted the respondent No. 1-accused for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocities Act. 2. The appeal has come up for admission and along with the appeal, the Appellant has also furnished set of evidence laid before the Special Court. The Court finds that both the victim and the accused are very young aged 18 to 20 years. Hence, the appeal is taken up for final hearing at admission stage, to which the learned Advocate for the appellant has agreed to and learned APP has also requested for final hearing as the State has not preferred any appeal (reportedly). The R&P is also received for the perusal of the Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2023, respondent No. 1-accused kidnapped victim, aged 16 years and 3 months, who is niece of the complainant, lured her on the false promise of marriage and took her to Ujjain and raped her and therefore, FIR being CR No. 11215006230333 of 2023 came to be registered with Borsad Town Police Station and after completion of investigation, charge sheet being 402 of 2023 came to be filed. Thereafter, charge Exh.6 came to be framed, which is as under: “You, the accused: Harshkumar Sachinbhai Parmar, got acquainted with the victim-the complainant: Amitkumar Pravinbhai Parmar‘s minor niece, age 16 years 3 months prior to offence, tempted and allured her over conversations, induced her for marriage and kidnapped the said minor victim from Borsad, Laxmi Narayan Nagar, Pamol Road at 00.30 o’clock on 11/07/2023 with intention of illicit intercourse. Thereafter, you took her to Ujjain and committed intercourse and rape and doing thereby, you, the accused, have committed an offence punishable under Section-363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section-6 of the P0CSO Act, 2012 and Serction-3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act within the jurisdiction of this Court.” 4. Thereafter, you took her to Ujjain and committed intercourse and rape and doing thereby, you, the accused, have committed an offence punishable under Section-363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section-6 of the P0CSO Act, 2012 and Serction-3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act within the jurisdiction of this Court.” 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant-complainant submitted that it is a serious case of rape of a minor girl aged 16 years and 3 months by luring her on the false promise of marriage. It is submitted that there is no discrepancy in the deposition of the victim and that the Sessions Court has not properly considered her evidence. 4.1 It is submitted that PW-1 Dr. Monica Dixit, Exh.8, who was the Medical Officer, in her deposition has clearly stated about the intercourse with the minor victim and the history given to her by the victim about whole incident. This medical evidence is also discarded by the Sessions Court. 4.2 It is submitted that PW-2 Dr. Milindsinh Yadav, Exh.14 was the Assistant Professor at Forensic Medicine Department at Karamsad Medical Hospital. Before this witness, the accused had given history of the accused eloping with the victim to Ujjain and having intercourse twice with the victim in a “Dharmshala.” This evidence is also discarded by the Sessions Court. 4.3 It is submitted that the Sessions Court has also discarded the evidence of the complainant-PW-3 Amitkumar Parmar, Exh.17, who is uncle of the victim. This witness in no uncertain terms in his deposition has stated that earlier also, respondent No. 1-accused abducted the victim from school, but at that time, the matter was not taken further, but the accused was scolded by the complainant. Similarly, the Sessions Court has also not properly considered evidence of wife of the complainant-PW-5 Minakshi Parmar, Exh.21. 4.4 It is also submitted that the Sessions Court has also not considered evidence of the Investigation Officer-PW-10 Abhishekh Gupta, Exh.45. Before this witness, the victim has categorically admitted that accused had twice sexual intercourse with her against her will on the false promise of marriage. 5. Learned APP for respondent No. 2-State has submitted that the Sessions Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused in such a serious offence of rape of a minor girl aged 16 years and 3 months. 6. 5. Learned APP for respondent No. 2-State has submitted that the Sessions Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused in such a serious offence of rape of a minor girl aged 16 years and 3 months. 6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that to prove the case against the respondents-accused, the prosecution relied upon following oral evidence: S. No. Name of the witness Exhibit No. 1 Deposition of PW-1 - Dr. Monica Dixit 8 2 Deposition of PW-2 - Dr. Milindsinh Yadav 14 3 Deposition of PW-3 - Amitkumar Parmar 17 4 Deposition of the victim 19 5 Deposition of PW-5 - Minakshi Parmar 21 6 Deposition of PW-6 - Nareshbhai Parmar 26 7 Deposition of PW-7 - Mukesh Chauhan 28 8 Deposition of PW-8 - Vipul Sindhav 29 9 Deposition of PW-9 - Pramodkumar Diora 31 10 Deposition of PW-10 - Abhishek Gupta 45 6.1 The prosecution also relied upon following documentary evidence: S. No. Particular Exhibit No. 1 Medical examination yadi of the victim 9 2 Case papers of medical examination of the victim 10 3 Letter written to FSL for sending medical samples of the victim 11 4 Medical examination certificate of the victim 12 5 Police yadi of medical examination of the accused 15 6 Medical examination certificate of the accused 16 7 Complaint 18 8 Statement of the victim under Section 164 20 9 Birth certificate of the victim 22 10 Caste certificate of the victim 23 11 Panchnama of body situation and cloths 24, 25 12 Panchnama of place of incident 27 13 Outward entry of muddamal 32 14 Outward entry of muddamal 33 15 Receipt of receiving muddamal 34 16 Receipt of receiving muddamal 35 17 Biological, serological report and letter of FSL 36 to 39 18 DNA report 40, 41 19 Report for adding sections 42 20 Report for taking statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 43 21 Yadi sent for providing Government panchas 44 22 Order appointing IO 46 7. From perusal of record, it appears that it is a case where victim herself has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. In her deposition at Ehx.19, she has clearly stated that she knows accused and was in love with the accused for last one and half years. From perusal of record, it appears that it is a case where victim herself has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. In her deposition at Ehx.19, she has clearly stated that she knows accused and was in love with the accused for last one and half years. She has also categorical stated that it does not happen that accused had intercourse with her against her will and that he took her by luring her and on false promise of marriage. In her cross-examination also, she has admitted of having love affair with the accused. 8. PW-1 Dr. Monica Dixit, Exh.8 was the Medical Officer, who examined the victim. Before this witness, the victim had clearly admitted of having love affair with the accused for last four years and that previously also, she had intercourse with her consent. 9. PW-2 Dr. Milindsinh Yadav was the Assistant Professor at Forensic Medicine Department at Karamsad Medical Hospital. Before this witness, the accused had stated about having love affair with the victim for last four years. This witness also suggested that whether intercourse had happened or not can be ascertained only after receipt of FSL report. 10. PW-3 Amitkumar Parmar, Exh.17 is the complainant. This witness in his deposition has stated that earlier also, respondent No. 1-accused abducted the victim from school, but at that time, the matter was not taken further, but the accused was scolded by the complainant. Looking to this version of the complaint, element of love affair between the accused and the victim cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the though the complaint was registered in presence of the victim, still victim has turned hostile and not supported case of prosecution. 11. PW-5 Minakshi Parmar, Exh.21 is the wife of the complainant. In her deposition, she has stated that on 10.07.2023, at about 12;00 to 12;30 in the night, her mother-in-law had informed her that the victim has gone out of the house to answer natural call and had not come back till then and thereafter, they went in search of accused and the victim. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has not herself seen accused taking victim with him. 12. PW-6 Naresh Parmar, Exh.26 and PW-7 Mukesh Chauhan, Exh.28 are the panch witnesses. In their depositions, they have clearly stated that they have signed on the ready panchnama. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has not herself seen accused taking victim with him. 12. PW-6 Naresh Parmar, Exh.26 and PW-7 Mukesh Chauhan, Exh.28 are the panch witnesses. In their depositions, they have clearly stated that they have signed on the ready panchnama. In their cross-examination, they have also clearly stated that it had not happened that they were took anywhere to prepare panchnama. Therefore, it can safely be said that these witnesses do not support the case of prosecution. 13. PW-8 Vipul Sindhav, Exh.29 was the Police Inspector at Borsad Town Police Station, when the complainant along with the victim came to register complaint. Before this witness, the complainant had stated that earlier also two to three times, the victim and accused were talking to each other, but at that time, they were only scolded and the matter was not taken any further. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the complaint was given after two days of the incident. 14. PW-9 Pramodkumar Diyora, Exh.31 was the Dy. SP. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that apart from preparing charge sheet, he has done nothing in the matter. 15. In the charge of rape the most important witness is the victim. In the offence of such nature, there may not be any eyewitness to the offence being committed. Therefore, utmost importance is to be given to the evidence of the victim. In the present case, when the victim is examined as PW-4 at Exh-19, in her deposition, she does admit of having an affair, but does not support the prosecution to the extend of Rape. 16. The Court has considered a fact that the father of the victim has died and mother is remarried, the victim is residing with her grand parents and uncle’s family. Therefore, the family appears to be over cautious and over protective about the victim. Hence, even when the victim has not supported still the Appeal is preferred. 17. The accused is a neighbor and 18 years of age and apparently, to prevent any repetition of elopement, the case appears to have been registered. In such fact situation, it would be unjust to convict the accused on the basis of versions of other witnesses. 18. It would also be pertinent to point out as to the manner how the crime was detected. In such fact situation, it would be unjust to convict the accused on the basis of versions of other witnesses. 18. It would also be pertinent to point out as to the manner how the crime was detected. The investigation had actually swiftly to collect the scientific evidence and the cloths of the victim. The prosecution has produced Exh-39, FSL Reports where the samples H-122 vaginal swabs from different places did not show presence of seamen. Vaginal swab also did not show stains of seamen. The cloths both of the victim and the accused, no traces of blood, seamen, saliva and stains have been found on each other cloths. Therefore, there is complete absence of any scientific evidence as well. 19. In view of the aforesaid evidence coming on record, coupled with medical evidence, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the victim in her deposition has clearly stated that she knows accused and was in love with the accused for last one and half years and that it does not happen that accused had intercourse with her against her will and that he took her by luring her and on false promise of marriage. Therefore, the Sessions Court has rightly given benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent-accused. 20. The Court may also draw strength from the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein the Apex Court has examined the case law with regard to the power of the High Court to overturned the decision of the Sessions Court where an another view is possible. Examining the case including that of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Apex Court has culled out the general principles regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal. The Apex Court has held that the appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the appellate court has to keep in mind that in case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. The Apex Court has held that the appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the appellate court has to keep in mind that in case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and thereafter, upon securing of acquittal, the presumption is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened, and therefore, whenever there are two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, ordinarily, the Apex Court would not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial court. 21. The Court has also perused judgment and order of the Sessions Court and finds that cogent and convincing reasons are assigned by the Sessions Court while acquitting the respondent-accused. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Bail bond stands discharged. Records and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Sessions Court.