Judgment : M. N. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Public Prosecutor is from the judgment of the learned Sessions judge, Nellore in Sessions Case No: 207 of 1989 acquitting the sole accused under section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of offences under Sections 449,376,302 and 201 of the Indian Indian Penal Code. Mavilla Kistamma (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), aged 15 years, was the daughter of one Subramanyam, resident of Annareddipalem within the limits of the police Station, Buchireddypalem, Nellore District. Maddisetti Penchalaiah (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was also a resident of the same village. The accused wanted to marry the deceased and sent proposals through his paternal uncle to the parents of the deceased. But, the latter did not agree for the alliance, and were contemplating to many the deceased to one Munaiah son of Annam Subbaramaiah, resident of Jonnawada village. The prosecution case was that, the accused being disappointed in his attempt to many the deceased, decided to commit rape on the deceased so that nobody else would many her. On 4th June 1987 at about 1-30 p. m. , when the deceased was alone in her house, the accused entered the house of the deceased, bolted the door from inside, threw the deceased on ground, gagged her mouth by inserting cloth and raped her. On hearing the cries of the deceased, her younger sister, ramanamma, P. W. 2, who was lying on a cot in front of the house, peeped through a window from the rear side of the house and noticed the accused lying on her sister (deceased) and struggling with the deceased. The accused strangulated the deceased to death and hung her body with the aid of a rope tied to her neck to the beam of the house, in order to suppress evidence of murder and rape. P. W. 2 ran towards the field to inform her parents. By the time she reached a bridge which separates Annareddipalem village from Minagallu village, she met P. W. 3, Mavilla Sarojanamma, wife of her junior paternal uncle, and P. W. 3s daughter, Pushpavati (not examined ). P. W. 3 and her daughter asked P. W. 2 as to why she was weeping and the latter informed them what the accused had done. All the three thereafter came to the house of the deceased. P. W. 3 and her daughter asked P. W. 2 as to why she was weeping and the latter informed them what the accused had done. All the three thereafter came to the house of the deceased. When they knocked on the door it was not opened. They went to the rear side of the house, peeped through the window and saw the accused tying the other end of the rope to the beam of the house. When they raised cries, the accused opened the door and ran away. On hearing the cries of P. Ws. 2 and 3, and Pushpavati, two neighbours, Eashwariah and seenaiah came there, umied the rope from the beam of the house and laid the body of the deceased on the floor. Pushpavathi then went and informed the parents of the deceased. P. W. 5, Mavilla Rajamma, is the mother of the deceased. The parents of the deceased came from the field to the house. At about 4 or 4-30 p. m. , on the same day, the Village servant, P. W. 4,came there and, on getting information, he went to the house ofp. W. 1, Sarpanch of the Village who returned home at about 6-30 p. m. , and informed p. W. 1 about the murder of the deceased. P. W. 1 visited the house of the deceased and from there returned home, drafted the report, Ex. P-1 and sent the same to the Police station, Bucchireddipalem, through P. W. 4, and another. The Head constable at the police Station. P. L. N. Raju, P. W. 12, received the report, Exp-1 from P. W. 4 at about 11p. m. , registered the same as Crime No: 116 of 1987 under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Indian Penal Code, and issued F.. R to all concerned. Ex. P-8 is the copy of the F.. R. The Incharge Inspector of Police, Kovvur Circle, P. W. 13, on receiving information, reached Butchireddipalem at about 12-30 a. m. , on the intervening night of 4/5th June 1987, took copy of the F.. R. and proceeded to Annareddipalem, village which is at a distance of 6 kilometres. P. W. 13 secured the presence of mediators P. Ws. 7 and 8 and inspected the scene of offence where an observation report, Ex. P-9, was drafted and a rough sketch, Ex. P-10 was prepared. R. and proceeded to Annareddipalem, village which is at a distance of 6 kilometres. P. W. 13 secured the presence of mediators P. Ws. 7 and 8 and inspected the scene of offence where an observation report, Ex. P-9, was drafted and a rough sketch, Ex. P-10 was prepared. He held inquest over the dead body between 8 to 11 a. m. , and at the inquest he examined P. Ws. 1 to 5. Ex. P-11 is the inquest report the dead body was thereafter sent through P. W. 10 for autopsy to the Government hospital, Butchireddipalem. Woman Medical Officer, P. W. 9, Dr. M. Saraswathi, conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at 330 pm on 5th June 1987 and issued Ex. P-5, post mortem certificate. She found the following external injuries which were ante-mortem in nature:" 1. A ligature mark was seen on the neck below the thyroid cartilage encircling the neck horizontally and completely. The base of the mark is soft and reddish. 2. Two small abrasions were on the back of right elbow joint measuring 1" x 1/2". 3. Three abrasions measuring 1"x1/2" were on the left elbow joint. 4. Two small abrasions were on the right thigh measuring 1/2"x1/4" present 5. Contusion on the front of chest 6"x4" present. On cut section the surrounding tissues were infiltrated with blood". The doctor preserved pubic hair, nails, vaginal swabs, skirt and saree of the deceased, and sent them to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion. Ex. P-6was the opinion of the Director of the said Laboratory. As per the said opinion, blood was found on the saree and petticoat, and no semen and spermatozoa were found on vaginal swabs. Ex. P-7 is the final opinion given by the doctor, P. W. 9, based upon the report of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. P-6; the opinion is there may be rape without ejaculation". The abrasions found on the dead body, according to the doctor "should have been caused while she was struggling on the ground". According to the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of trangulauion and the deceased appears to have died 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The abrasions found on the dead body, according to the doctor "should have been caused while she was struggling on the ground". According to the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of trangulauion and the deceased appears to have died 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The accused was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Kovvur, P. W. 14 on 3rd July 1987, one month after the offence, at Thurmerla bus-stand in Buchireddypalem town. The plea f the accused was one of denial. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of the two direct-witnesses, p. Ws. 2 and 3. P. W. 3 is a resident of Minagallu, a neighbouring village at a distance of about 2 miles from Annareddipalem. In her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she stated to the police that she was a residentof Annareddipalem village, and the contradiction was marked as Ex. D-2. Ex. D-3 is stated to be another contradiction in relation to the same witness P. W. 3. This contradiction was alleged to be that she did not state in her statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. , that along with her daughter she was going to Annareddipalem from the fields. Basing upon these two contradictions and certain other circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of both the direct witnesses. It was observed by the learned Judge that the evidence of P. W:3 is that, though there was partition between her husband and her husbands brother (father of the deceased) with regard to the houses and though her husband had sold away the house at Annareddipalem and migrated to Minagallu, they kept the lands joint, is doubtful, and hat this fact she did not mention to the police. Observing that there was no direct evidence, the learned Judge was of the view that, when P. W. 2 fetched P. W. 3 and her daughter Pushpavati, and when they found the accused hanging the deceased to the beam of the house with a coconut rope, and when they raised cries the accused ran away, the accused had no time to tie the other end of the rope to the beam of the house before running away, and based upon this inference the learned Judge commented suggestively that finding of the rope by the Sub Inspector of Police was inexplicable. When it was the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 that the neighbours Easwaraiah and Seenaiah came there and untied the rope and laid the deceased on the ground, P. W. 3 did not state in her evidence whether the rope was untied from the neck of the deceased or from the beam of the house. This was one of the circumstances highlighted by the learned Judge to condemn the evidence of P. W. 3. Yet another circumstance which weighed with the learned Judge was that the accused alone could not have tied the rope to the neck of the deceased when it was not the case of the prosecution that the deceased became unconscious. As the accused was only aged 20 years, it was not possible for the accused, according to the learned Judge, "to strangulate the deceased to death when she was struggling and to tie the other end of the rope to the beam. " Non-examination of the neighbours also was one of the circumstances for the learned Judge to disbelieve the prosecution case. Even if all able bodied persons in the neighbourhood went to fields. the learned Judge felt, others like old people and children might have been available in the neighbourhood but they were not examined. The two neighbours Easwaraiah and Seenaiah who came and untied the rope, were neither cited nor examined. The village servant, P. W. 4s evidence was found to be not trustworthy on the ground that he did not state the names of the persons who informed him that the accused committed the offence when he went to the house of the deceased at about 4-30 p. m. , on the date of occurrence. The rope, broken bangle-pieces and an ear-ring found near the scene of offence were not sent to the court by the police and there was no mention in the inquest report about one ear-ring on the dead body and the missing of the second ring, are some of the other circumstances taken into account by the learned judge for acquitting the accused. What is the scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal? The law on this aspect is well settled. For the first time, the question came to be considered by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup vs. King Emperor (AIR 1934 Privy Council -227 ). What is the scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal? The law on this aspect is well settled. For the first time, the question came to be considered by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup vs. King Emperor (AIR 1934 Privy Council -227 ). In that case, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses characterising them as hers. On appeal, the High Court reappraised the evidence and convicted the accused. There was no clear-cut legal principle at that time as to the extent and scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in appeals preferred against acquittals. Different High Courts had taken divergent views. The Privy Council granted leave to appeal only on. that ground. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel before the board, Lord Rusell of Killowen stated the law thus:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO limitation should be placed upon that power (to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded), unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakned by the fact that the has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this however is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice. To state this however is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice. "following-the above view of the Privy Council, the Supreme Court in G. B. Patel vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 S. C.-135), held:"where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the court below has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal. "citing the aforesaid two decisions, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in awadhesh vs. State of Modhya Pradesh (AIR 1988s. C-1158), speaking through his lordship K. N. Singh. , held:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNLESS conclusions of the trial Court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable, the High court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. "bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is sustainable. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution very carefully. In our considered opinion, the reasons stated by the learned Judge for disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are clearly unreasonable, bordering on perversity and, therefore, we are constrained to interfere with the order of acquittal. The evidence on record does not give any scope to come to a conclusion other than the one that the accused is guilty of the offences attempt to commit rape, screening of evidence and murder punishable under Sections 376, 201 and 302 respectively of the Indian Penal code. P. W. 2, the younger sister of the deceased, was aged about 10 to 11 years when the offence was committed. On the date in question, the deceased, who was aged about 15 years, went to the fields where her parents, paternal uncle and P. W. 3 (wife of her paternal uncle) were working. After giving them food, the deceased returned home. On the date in question, the deceased, who was aged about 15 years, went to the fields where her parents, paternal uncle and P. W. 3 (wife of her paternal uncle) were working. After giving them food, the deceased returned home. She was inside the house and at that time, P. W. 2 was lying on a cot in front of the house. P. W. 2 suddenly heard cries of the deceased "ammenannu Champestunnaru" whereupon she got up and tried to push the door. As the door was not opened, she went behind the house, got up on the window and looked into the house. She found her sister (deceased) lying on the ground, and the accused lying upon the deceased and struggling with the deceased She noticed that the deceased was gagged with a piece of cloth. When P. W. 2 raised cries, none came to the house. She then started running towards the field to inform her parents about the incident. This aspect of her (P. W. 2) evidence it is impossible to disbelieve by any reasonable standards. The reason for the learned Judge to discard her evidence is that P. W. 2 stated in her cross-examination that she could not look into the house through the window by standing on the ground as she was shorter than the window. This pan of her statement elicited in her cross- examination cannot, in our view, in the least, affect the trustworthiness of her evidence in the examination-in-chief. She categorically stated that she got up on the window and looked into the house. The house in question is a one room thatched house the walls of which are eight feet high. There are two beams in the house. There is a window on the rear side of the house. It was though the rear side window the incident was witnessed by P. W. 2 by getting upon the window. The height of the window is three feet from the ground from outside as per the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 12. The description of the wall, window and the house as spoken to by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 12 was not shattered in his cross- examination. The height of the window is three feet from the ground from outside as per the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 12. The description of the wall, window and the house as spoken to by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 12 was not shattered in his cross- examination. Common sense tells that it is not difficult for a village girl aged about 10 to 11 years to climb on to a a window of three feet When P. W. 2 heard death-sounding cries, she had to find out what was happening inside the house. In such a situation, it was but natural for a young girl placed in her position to climb upon the window and notice what was happening inside the house. It is a fact that she (P. W. 2) stated in her cross-examination "i cannot look into house through the window by standing on the ground as I was shorter than the window". It was not her evidence that standing on the ground she witnessed the incident. The crucial aspect that P. W. 2 climbed upon the window was ignored by the learned Judge in judging the veracity of her evidence. When a suggestion was made to P. W. 2 that she did not inform the police that she climbed upon the window and witnessed the occurrence, she stoutly denied the suggestion. No omission or contradiction in this regard was brought on record. The next witness whose evidence has to be carefully scrutinised is P. W. 3, wife of the junior paternal uncle of the deceased. Her evidence was that, on the date of the incident, she and her husband along with the parents of the deceased were working in the fields. Her husband and the father of the deceased were owning lands jointly. Her husband and the father of the deceased being brothers were living jointly at Annareddipalem until five years prior to the occurrence. Later on she and her family migrated to the neighbouring village Minagallu which is at a distance of 2 miles from Annareddipalem. P. W. 3 clearly stated that the deceased brought food to the fields for all of them at about noon and went back. P. W. 3s daughter, Pushpavati came to the field. Later on she and her family migrated to the neighbouring village Minagallu which is at a distance of 2 miles from Annareddipalem. P. W. 3 clearly stated that the deceased brought food to the fields for all of them at about noon and went back. P. W. 3s daughter, Pushpavati came to the field. As she was a young girl aged 13 years and as it was a hot day, P. W. 3 did not want her daughter to be exposed to the scorching Sun. She, therefore, was going to the house of the deceased with her daughter Pushpavati to leave her at the house of the deceased. A bridge intervenes the two villages. When P. W. 3 and her daughter Pushpavati came upto the bridge, they noticeed P. W. 2 coming from the opposite direction weeping. When they asked the reason, P. W. 2 narrated what she had seen. All the three came to the house of the deceased. It was bolted from inside. They went behind the house and looked into the house through the window. P. W. 3 noticed that the accused was hanging the deceased to the beam of the house with a coconut rope. When they raised cries, easwaraiah and Seenaiah came there. Meanwhile the accused put on his clothes and ran away. This part of the statement of P. W. 3, in our view, is entitled to full credence. The reasons for discarding her evidence, as stated by the learned Judge, are utterly unreasonable and perverse. Ex. D-3,the so-called omission in respect of the evidence of P. W. 3 was one of the reasons for discarding her evidence. Ex. D-3 is stated to be a contradiction in the statement of P. W. 3 made to the police. In her evidence, she stated that she was coming with her daughter towards the house of the deceased. In her cross- examination, it was elicited "it is not true to say that I did not state to the police that i was taking my daughter to the house of the deceased (omission)". The omission said to be implied in the statement is that, she did not mention to the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. that she was coming towards Annareddipalem with her daughter. The English translation of Ex. The omission said to be implied in the statement is that, she did not mention to the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. that she was coming towards Annareddipalem with her daughter. The English translation of Ex. D-3 as marked by the court below reads as follows:"we went to the field yesterday. In the meantime at about 11/2 hours p. m. , i came to the house with my daughter Pushpavat. "the original of Ex. D-3, which is in Telugu, is entirely different from how it was translated into English. The correct translation of Ex. D-3 is as follows:"yesterday, we went to the fields. In the afternoon at about 1-30 when I and my daughter Pushpavati were coming towards the house and by the time we came to the bridge Ramanamma, sister of the deceased, came from the opposite direction and informed that Penchalaiah ( accused) son of M. Narasaiah trespassed into the house, bolted the door from inside, felled kistamma (deceased), thrust cloth into her mouth, fell upon her and was struggling with her. "this is entirely different from what Ex. D-3 as marked by the court below conveys. It was totally irrelevant for P. W. 3 to think of informing the police in her statement. under section 161 Cr. P. C. , that her husband and the father of the deceased were holding lands jointly, it would have been a different matter had P. W. 3 stated to the police that the lands were not held jointly and that there was separate cultivation. When that question was not asked by the police, there is no warrant to draw an inference that her omission to state that fact to the police renders her testimony doubtful, as characterised by the learned judge. Why P. W. 3 did not take her daughter to her own house at Minagallu village does not assume any relevance at all when her testimony positively is to the effect that when she was coming with her daughter, P. W. 2 met them and narrated the incident when P. W. 3 looked through the window from the rear side of the house, she observed the accused, after having tied one end of the rope to the neck of the deceased, was trying to tie the other end of the rope to the beam of the house. When they raised cries, he opened the door. It is absolutely impossible to entertain any doubt that he had no time to complete the act of tying the rope and, therefore, the evidence of P. W. 3 was untrustworthy. When she had seen through the window, the accused was trying to tie the other end of the rope to the beam of the house. When P. W. 3 and others raised cries, necessarily some time must have elapsed and after completing tying of the rope, the accused opened the door and bolted away. He had no other choice or option except to open the door and bolt away. The situation was such that he could not have confronted p. Ws. 2 and 3, and the daughter of P. W. 3 as there was risk of people from the neighbourhood gathering on hearing the cries of P. Ws. 2 and 3. In fact, two persons, easwaraiah and Seenaiah came there and they united the rope. The learned Judges comment that both of them were neither cited nor examined clearly shows that he did not look into the evidence properly. It was brought about in the evidence of P. W. 5, mother of the deceased, that Easwaraiah died one month prior to the trial, and that seenaiah is the first cousin of the accused. As regards Easwaraiah, it was impossible to examine him as he was already dead by the date of the trial. It was futile to examine seenaiah in view of his close blood-relationship with the accused. The presumption drawn by the learned Judge that, if able bodied people were engaged in agricultural operations, there would have been old people and children in the village who on hearing cries of P. Ws. 2 and 3, if their version was true, would have rushed to the scene, is totally untenable. It was not brought about in the evidence whether there was any one available in the immediate neighbourhood of the house of the deceased. The evidence is clear and categorical; on hearing cries of P. Ws. 2 and 3, at least two persons came viz. , Easwaraiah and Seenaiah. This aspect was overlooked totally by the learned Judge. No reasons are mentioned by the learned Judge for disbelieving the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 4. P. W. 1 is the Sarpanch of the village. 2 and 3, at least two persons came viz. , Easwaraiah and Seenaiah. This aspect was overlooked totally by the learned Judge. No reasons are mentioned by the learned Judge for disbelieving the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 4. P. W. 1 is the Sarpanch of the village. P. W. 4 is the village servant. P. W. 4 came to know at about4-30p. m. , about the death of the deceased. he went to the house of the deceased and heard people talking that the accused was the culprit. He came back to the house of P. W. I who returned from his fields at about 6-30 p. m. , and P. W. 4 informed P. W. 1 as to what he had seen whereupon P. W. 1 went to the house of the deceased, saw the dead body and also heard people talking that the accused was the culprit. Thereafter, P. W. I returned home and prepared Ex. P-1 and sent the same to the Po. lice Station, Butchireddipalem through P. W. 4. The said police station is at a distance of 10 kilometres from the house of P. W-1. Their evidence was natural in the circumstances of the case. There are no infirmities whatsoever. Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused contended that the absence of names of the witnesses in the report, Ex. P-1, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. We do not agree. It is no part of the duty of P. W. 1, Sarpanch, to examine witnesses at the scene and incorporate namesof the witnesses and summary of what they narrated to him. The institution of Village Munsif was abolished in the State as far back as 1983. When p. W. 4, the village servant informed P. W. 1, the Sarpanch, the latter felt it was his duty to bring it to the notice of the authorities what people talked about and he incorporated the same in Exp-1. It must be noticed in this context that the name of the accused was clearly mentioned at the earliest point of time in the first document, Exp. 1. The Eye-witnesses, P. Ws. 2 and 3 , were examined on the next day at the inquest there was no unexplained delay whatsoever either in sending Exp-1, report to the police, or, in the police taking up investigation. 1. The Eye-witnesses, P. Ws. 2 and 3 , were examined on the next day at the inquest there was no unexplained delay whatsoever either in sending Exp-1, report to the police, or, in the police taking up investigation. No motive whatsoever was suggested to any of the witnesses for deposing falsely implicating the accused. P. W. 5, mother of the deceased, in her testimony mentioned that the accused wanted the deceased to be given in marriage to him and sent his paternal uncle as a mediator. She and her husband did not agree for the alliance and they decided to give their daughter in marriage to the son of P. W. 6. This part of her testimony was corroborated by P. W. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the attempt made by the accused to marry the deceased having failed, it was but natural that he entertained a grouse against the family of the deceased. An important aspect to be noticed in this context is that the accused, after coming to know that the parents of the deceased were not willing for his marriage with the deceased indulged in acts of teasing the deceased and this she complained to her mother, P. W. 5. P. W. 5 in her evidence stated that the deceased informed her that the accused used to tease her and this statement of P. W. 5 is clearly admissible in evidence, under Section 32 of the Indian evidence Act. The medical evidence clearly corroborates the ocular testimony of P. W. 3. The external injury Nos: 2 to 4 found on the body of the deceased were clearly suggestive of the struggle she had put up with the accused. Injury No: 5, contusion on the chest, 6"x4", shows that it was the result of the assault committed by the accused, Injury No: 1, ligature mark on the neck could not be due to suicide by hanging. P. W. 9, doctor, categorically stated: "there will not be fracture of hyoid bone in case of suicide by hanging. There will not be abrasions or contusions on the dead body in case of suicide by hanging. " the struggle part of the incident was witnessed by P. W. 2. P. Ws. 2 and 3 had seen the accused attempting to tie the other end of the rope to the beam of the house. There will not be abrasions or contusions on the dead body in case of suicide by hanging. " the struggle part of the incident was witnessed by P. W. 2. P. Ws. 2 and 3 had seen the accused attempting to tie the other end of the rope to the beam of the house. The only conclusion that must inevitably be drawn on the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 is that, it was the accused who committed sexual assault on the deceased and caused her death by strangulation. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record. Whether the accused committed rape under Section 376 of the Indian Indian Penal Code, or, he attempted to commit rape is the question next to be considered. The medical evidence is to the effect that there was no semen or spermatozoa on the pubic hair, petticoat, saree and vaginal swabs of the deceased. The final opinion Ex. P-7 of the doctor, P. W. 9 based upon the report of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, hyderabad is that: "there may be rape without ejaculation". In her cross-examination the doctor stated: "there is no data forthcoming to come to the conclusion that there was rape without ejaculation. " although, as per the Explanation to Section 376, IPC. , penetration is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse leading to the offence of rape, we are inclined to take the view, in view of the medical evidence, that the accused attempted to commit the offence of rape on the deceased and, therefore, he is liable for conviction under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Coda the accused is aged about 20 years. Being a villager, he must be in good health. At any rate, there is no evidence that he was stiffening from any disability or physical incapacity. By the time he tied the rope around the neck of the deceased, she was already dead. As she was aged only 15 years then, it was not difficult for the accused aged about 20 years to lift the body and tie the other end of the rope to the beam of the house. The height of the wall of the house is only 8 feet. As she was aged only 15 years then, it was not difficult for the accused aged about 20 years to lift the body and tie the other end of the rope to the beam of the house. The height of the wall of the house is only 8 feet. By hurling the rope from one side to the other, it is very easy to create evidence that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. It was not improbable for the accused in the situation in which he was placed. The comment of the learned Judge "it is not possible for him to strangulate the deceased to death when she was struggling and to tie the other end of the rope to the beam " clearly shows that he had not taken into account the important fact that, when that stage was reached, the deceased was already dead. The only conclusion that must be drawn from the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 is that the accused, after committing sexual assault on the deceased, caused her death by strangulation. He is, therefore, clearly liable, in our considered opinion, for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Indian Penal Code. For these reasons, we find the accused guilty for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Indian Penal Code and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for life. We further find him guilty for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Indian Penal Code, and sentence him to a term of five years rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 201 of the Indian Indian Penal Code, we find him guilty and sentence him to a term of three years rigorous imprisonment all the sentences shall run concurrently. The Judgment of the learned Judge is set aside. The accused is convicted and sentenced as directed above. The accused shall be taken into custody and the sentences shall be executed forthwith. The appeal is accordingly allowed.