JUDGMENT : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surguja (Ambikapur), C.G. in Sessions Trial No.230/2012, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath of the charge under Sections 342 , 366 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and respondent No.2- Laxman Korva of the charge under Section 366 (d) of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.04.2012, while prosecutrix (PW-1) was returning home from the house of one Ramlal, on way, respondent No.1-Thurra @ Sukhnath stopped her, forcibly took her inside the house of Ramlal, locked the door from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she raised cries for help, respondent No.1-Thurra @ Sukhnath gagged her mouth. Thereafter, on the same day, at about 7:00 pm, respondent No.1 took her to the house of respondent No.2- Laxman at Maheshpur and borrowed his motorcycle and from there, respondent No.1 along with prosecutrix and respondent No.2 went to his brother-in-law's house at village Katkalo where also respondent No.1-Thurra @ Sukhnath committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After that, on 28.04.2012, prosecutrix was brought home by her brother and brother-in-law, to whom, she narrated the incident and thereafter, on 04.05.2012, she lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) against the respondents at Police Station Sitapur. 3. During investigation, on her consent (Ex.P-2), prosecutrix was sent for medical examination where Dr. S.P. (PW-5) examined her and did not notice any sign of recent forcible sexual intercourse with her nor did find any sign of injury over the body of the prosecutrix either internally or externally and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-11A. Undergarments of prosecutrix and respondent No.1 were seized vide Exs.P-3 and P-6 respectively. Vide Ex.P-7, motorcycle of respondent No.2- Laxman and other relevant papers were seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-21), no seminal spots and human spermatozoa have been found on the articles marked as “A, B & C”, i.e. undergarments of prosecutrix and respondent No.1 as well as slide of prosecutrix. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 5. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 21 documents connecting the respondents/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents/accused persons have examined none and not exhibited any document. 6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges leveled against them. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would vehemently submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is ample evidence on record to show that accused persons/respondents have abducted the prosecutrix and respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, which is also evident from the statements of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Now, the question would be whether the respondents/accused persons are the authors of the crime in question or not? 11. PW-1 Prosecutrix has stated that on 26.04.2012 at about 4:00 pm, she had gone to the house of one Ramlal to collect her labour charges and at that time, Ramlal was not present in the house and only his wife was at home and while she was returning, on way, respondent No.1 Thurra @ Sukhnath intercepted her, forcibly took her inside the house of Ramlal, locked the door from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she raised cries, respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath gagged her mouth. She has further stated that on the same day, at about 7:00 pm, respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath took her to the house of respondent No.2 Laxman at Maheshpur and from there, they went to the house of brother-in-law of respondent No.1 where he again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. However, the said Ramlal and his wife, in whose house the initial alleged offence is said to have taken place, have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. In cross- examination, firstly prosecutrix denied that on 24.04.2012, she had left Ramlal's house to go to Katkalo village with respondent No.1, but on the contrary, admitted that she had left on 26.04.2012. She further admitted that she lodged a report at Police Station about 10 days after 26.04.2012. She also admitted that she had gone with respondent No.1- to the house of respondent No.2- Laxman and on way, she saw many persons, but she did not inform anyone about the incident. She also admitted that at village Katkalo, brother and sister-in-law of respondent No.1 were present and she stayed there for three days and during that period, neither she informed them about the incident nor stated that she has been forcibly abducted by respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath. 12. She also admitted that at village Katkalo, brother and sister-in-law of respondent No.1 were present and she stayed there for three days and during that period, neither she informed them about the incident nor stated that she has been forcibly abducted by respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath. 12. PW-6 Sister of respondent No.1 has stated that when prosecutrix came to her house, she was talking with her and she told the prosecutrix to return her house, but prosecutrix told her that we will stay together and die together. She has further stated that prosecutrix stayed overnight at her house and on the next day, went alone to attend nature's call and then returned. She has also stated that prosecurtrix's brother and brother-in-law came to her house and forcibly took the prosecutrix along with them, although prosecutrix did not want to leave. She has also stated that prosecutrix and respondent No.1 belong to different castes, therefore, they could not get married. She has also stated that both the respondents and prosecutrix told her that they have come to her house to attend wedding and respondent No.2 had left the prosecutrix and respondent No.1 in her house and on being asked, they told her that they like each other. 13. PW-9 Maternal uncle of the prosecutrix has stated that prosecutrix had left the house without informing anyone. He has further stated that prosecutrix was staying secretly with respondent No.1 for two to four days and was in normal condition. He has also stated that when he asked prosecutrix to return home, she told him that she would stay with respondent No.1. However, this witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 14. PW-7 Sister of the prosecutrix has stated that prosecutrix had informed her brother/PW-2 and brother-in-law that respondent No.1 has committed sexual intercourse with her at Ramlal’s house. However, on the contrary, PW-2 brother of the prosecutrix has stated that prosecutrix did not inform him anything about the incident and that brother-in-law of prosecutrix has also not been examined by the prosecution to establish the factum of incident. 15. Thus, perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of victim/prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other. 15. Thus, perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of victim/prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other. Furthermore, the evidence available on record would show that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and stayed with respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath on her own free will and consent and no resistance was made by her during course of stay with the respondent No.1. Furthermore, she did not make any complaint to any of the nearby persons while staying and travelling with respondent No.1 from village Telaishar to village Maheshpur and thereafter 55 km away to village Katkalo on a motorcycle. The evidence shows that she was not abducted by the respondents and she herself accompanied the respondent No.1 on her own volition and consent. That apart, the alleged incident occurred on 26.04.2012, but FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged on 04.05.2012, for which, no explanation has been offered by the prosecution for such delay in lodging the FIR (Ex.P-1). Apart from this, Dr. S.P. (PW-5) who examined the prosecutrix did not notice any sign of recent sexual intercourse nor did find any sign of injury over the body of the prosecutrix either internally or externally. In addition, as per FSL report (Ex.P-21), no seminal spots and human spermatozoa have been found on the undergarments of prosecutrix and respondent No.1 as well as slide of prosecutrix, meaning thereby, prosecutrix was not subjected to forcible sexual assault by respondent No.1. The law is well settled that in the case of rape, the conviction can be maintained even on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence inspires confidence. However, in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence as her conduct itself shows that she was staying with respondent No.1 on her own free will. 16. However, in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence as her conduct itself shows that she was staying with respondent No.1 on her own free will. 16. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and, after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the evidence of prosecutrix itself shows that she was staying and travelling with the respondent No.1 at various places on her own free will and that, there is no evidence on record to show that on the date of incident, respondents No.1 & 2 forcibly abducted her and that respondent No.1 subjected her to sexual assault and as such, acquitted them of the said charges leveled against them. 17. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondent Nos.1 & 2 of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 18. Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondent Nos.1 & 2 is hereby dismissed.