JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge having disagreed with the verdict of the jury, refers the matter to us under, the section mentioned above. The accused was charged with the offence of rape under section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860. We have considered the evidence, and we think that had we ourselves been trying the case we would probably have arrived at the same conclusion to which the learned Sessions Judge has come, namely, that the prisoner was guilty. However, the prisoner has been tried by a jury, and by the unanimous verdict found not guilty. 2. We do not consider that the mere fact that we ourselves, upon the same evidence, would have arrived at a different conclusion from that arrived at by the jury, is sufficient to justify our interfering with the unanimous verdict of the jury. Having regard to come contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the little girl and also the delay in bringing forward the charge, (all matters for the consideration of the jury), we cannot say that the verdict was perverse. The verdict of the jury being quite free from ambiguity we do not think that the learned Sessions Judge was quite correct, under the provisions of section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in asking the questions he did of the jury after their verdict, and we do not think that we would be justified in considering the answers they gave. We, therefore, in accordance with the view we have expressed, and with the provisions of section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accept the verdict of the jury and acquit the accused of the offence with which he was charged. The accused will be at once released.