JUDGMENT The circumstances are as follows:-" (1) That the deceased had left her house at about 3 p.m. and thereafter had gone to the house of Mehtarinbai and thereafter left towards Dolikhar followed by the accused. (2) The deceased was going towards Dolikhar after leaving the house of Mehtarinbai and on the way had met Geneshiya (PW.9) and even at that time the accused was there near the place of this meeting. The deceased had gone towards her field in Dolikhar after meeting Ganeshiya and the accused was fully aware of it and was very near to the deceased when the deceased had left towards the field. (3) The accused was seen in nervous condition after the commission of the offence when he had met Ankalu and this is a strong circumstance against the accused. (4) Accused was very near to the spot at about 4 p.m. and this link has been established by the testimony of Ankalu and Kartik. (5) The accused had gone very far from his village to Dawakhar at the time of Sunset and this is a guilty conduct inasmuch as the accused wanted to avoid suspicion by remaining in the village. (6) There was injury on the private part of the accused suggesting not only commission of rape, but also the murder. (7) Presence of the motive of sexual intercourse as also of the strained relation between the family of the accused and the family of the deceased. (8) The Chemical report showing stains on the clothes of the deceased and the injuries on the person of the deceased suggested not only sexual intercourse, but also the commission of murder. Even the clothes of the accused were found stained with spermatozoa, though the correct seizure was not proved. (9) Absence of accused from school on 19.12.85" Held: There is no evidence to show that the deceased was being chased by the appellant. The evidence of Mehtarinbai (PW.8) would show that after sometime the appellant was also seen going towards the direction to which the deceased had gone. Geneshiya (PW. 9) was a child witness. (9) Absence of accused from school on 19.12.85" Held: There is no evidence to show that the deceased was being chased by the appellant. The evidence of Mehtarinbai (PW.8) would show that after sometime the appellant was also seen going towards the direction to which the deceased had gone. Geneshiya (PW. 9) was a child witness. Her testimony cannot be given any weight for basing a conviction and her evidence would also show that she had seen the deceased and the accused not together but separately and that she had further seen them going towards different directions.- The other witnesses Ankalu and Kartikram also could not say anything against the appellant which could be relied on as a circumstance to connect the appellant unmistakably with the offences charged. There is evidence to show that the appellant had not gone to the school on the date of the incident but that alone is not sufficient to hold him guilty of the offences charged. So far as the injury found on the private parts of the appellant is concerned, Dr. R.K. Nag (PW.18) was specific in saying that the injury found on his private parts could not be caused if rape was committed on a girl aged about 12 years, who was accustomed to sexual intercourse. The deceased was accustomed to sexual intercourse as per evidence of Dr. R.D. Nagariya (PW.1) and the post-mortem report Ex. I-A. The Serologist's report in regard to articles sent to him for chemical examination is meaningless in view of the finding recorded by the Court below in paragraph 17 (8) that the seizure made from the appellant was not proved. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that although the prosecution was successful in proving that the deceased Bhagtinbai was subjected to rape and thereafter killed, it failed to connect the appellant with the alleged rape or murder of the deceased. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to acquittal. Appeal allowed.