HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Special Leave to Appeal No.24 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand. ……Appellant Versus Satpal Singh, S/o Sri Nihal Singh, R/o Geeta Nagar P.S. Rishikesh, District-Dehradun. …Respondent Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. Government Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. The present leave to appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/VII F.T.C, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 84/2004 (Case Crime No. 9/2003) by which the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 366, 376 and 417 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R was lodged on 03.1.2003 by Smt. Snehlata, the mother of the prosecutrix alleging therein that the accused- respondent, Satpal Singh kidnapped the prosecutrix on 4th October, 2002 from Bapugram IDPL, PS- Rishikesh with an intention and knowledge to seduce her to make illicit intercourse of forced her to marry him against her will and thereafter took her to Hardwar, Kullu, Nainital, Muzaffarnagar and other places. It is also alleged that the accused-respondent made sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix forcibly at Nainital and Muzaffarnagar and he also solemanized marriage with the prosecutrix by deceiving her fraudulently and dishonestly, knowing the fact that he had already been married with Smt. Varsha Devi. When the accused and the prosecutrix were at Muzaffarnagar at the residence of his elder brother’s in-laws, the wife and children of the accused- respondent came there and thereafter the respondent and the prosecutrix were taken back to their houses. Hence, the prosecutrix came to her house after 10-15 days and the F.I.R was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix after a long delay on 03.1.2003. The matter was investigated by the police. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted chargesheet against the accused- respondent before the court concerned. 3. After submission of the chargesheet, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and charges under Sections 366, 376 and 417 IPC were framed against the accused-respondent by the learned trial court. The accused-respondent denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 13.9.2004. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW1, Smt. Snehlata as PW2 who is the mother of the prosecutrix, S.I. N.D. Thakur as PW3 who is the Investigating Officer of the case & Dr. Savitri Uniyal as PW4 who has medically examined the prosecutrix on 07.1.2003. 5. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-respondent denied all the averments made in the evidence and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case due to the enmity. 6. The learned trial court after appreciation of the evidence held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges framed against the accused-respondent and, therefore, acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges levelled against him. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It is settled position of law that if two views are possible, the appellate court would take the same view which has been taken by the trial court. Secondly, it is also well settled position of law that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is trustworthy, the conviction can be based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix. Now, the learned trial court, after appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, has found that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not credible and cogent. It is full of infirmities. There is no doubt that the evidence of the prosecutrix was recorded on 13.9.2004 i.e. about two years after the incident and she has stated in her statement that she was 21 years of age at the time of the incident. It is undisputed that she was major on the date of the incident. The first question arises for consideration is whether any forcible sexual intercourse was committed or not by the accused-respondent. The perusal of the evidence shows that it is full of infirmities. The F.I.R which was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix on the narration of the prosecutrix herself doesn’t show that any allegation under Section 376 is made out against the accused-respondent. The F.I.R was lodged simply under Sections 363, 366 and 506 IPC. When the prosecutrix appeared before the court, she has stated in her evidence that she had not stated to the Investigating Officer that she was subjected to sexual intercourse at Kullu & Muzaffarnagar. She has further stated in her evidence that she had stated to the Investigating Officer at the investigation stage that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse at Nainital. But in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no mention of forcible sexual intercourse committed upon her. Hence, the statement of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions with the statement recorded at the stage of investigation. It is also in the evidence of the prosecutrix that she went alongwith the accused- respondent on her own accord at Hardwar where she purchased clothes. It is also evident that the prosecutrix was major on the date of the incident. She was confronted on the plaint which was filed before a family court for declaring the marriage with the accused-respondent (which is alleged to have taken place in a Mandir/Temple on 05/9/2002 and was registered on 15/9/2002) as null and void. In the plaint, she has not stated any averment of rape as has been admitted by the prosecutrix in her deposition. The prosecutrix was taken to so many places. She remained with the accused-respondent for a long period and if she was subjected to rape, she could have taken the help of others but at nowhere she took the help of others. Thus, it shows that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act. 8. In view of the above, I am completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court and I do not find any force in this leave to appeal petition. Thus, the leave petition is liable to be dismissed and in hereby dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (J.C.S. RAWAT, J.) Dated 20.05.2008 V.K.