RAJENDRA PRASAD, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State filed under Section 378 Cr. P. C. against the judgment dated 27. 11. 97 passed in SC/st No. 26/1996 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharwar wherein the learned Judge had recorded a finding of acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 376, 342, 506 IPC. And Section 3 (i) (ii) (v) (x) (xi) of SC/st Act, 1989 challenging the legality and validity of the judgment impugned. ( 2 ) WE have heard the arguments of Sri B. C. Muddappa, Addl. SPP on behalf of the State and learned Advocate Sri Ravish Benni of behalf of the respondent. ( 3 ) SRI B. C. Muddappa, learned Addl. SPP strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment of the trial Court is illegal and invalid. The material on record clearly shows that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused as required by law for the said offences. The evidence placed on record is clear, cogent and convincing. The learned Sessions Judge had not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel has contended that the material on record also shows that pw. 1 has narrated the incident in question and her evidence itself is sufficient to spell out a case against the accused. Hence the learned Counsel prayed for allowing the appeal. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, Sri Ravish Benni, learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment of the Trial Court is legal and valid. The evident placed on record by the persecution is highly insufficient and unacceptable to spell out a case in favour of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge had properly appreciated the evidence on record and had recorded a finding of acquittal. The evidence of PW. 1 cannot be pressed into service to spell out a case in favour of the prosecution, particularly in view of the fact that she was aged more than 17 years at that time and she had been a consenting party. The learned Counsel also contended that the material on record, the conduct and behaviour of PW. 1 are sufficient to belie the case of the prosecution. There are not merits in the appeal. The learned Counsel also contended that the material on record, the conduct and behaviour of PW. 1 are sufficient to belie the case of the prosecution. There are not merits in the appeal. Hence the learned Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 5 ) WE have carefully perused the materials on record and have given our anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised at the bar. ( 6 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the following three facets! ( 7 ) FIRSTLY, the prosecution contends that PW. 1 Kumari Puttavva was aged around 12 years at the time of the incident. In proof of this aspect, the prosecution has relied upon Ex. P-3, a Certificate issued by PW. 8 and the same shows that PW. 1 was aged about 12 years and below 17 years. Ex. P-9 the Certificate issued by PW. 11 as Head Master of the N. M. D. Girls High School, Haunsbhavi shows that PW. 1 Kumari Puttavva was born on 10. 6. 1979. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 16. 5. 1995. This shows that PW. 1 was over 16 years at the relevant time. The Court will have to add or subtract two years. As per this, the age of PW. 1 is around 15 years and/or 19 years. It is pertinent to mention that pw. 1, when examined before the Court on 11. 9. 1997 has furnished the age as 14 years. The incident in question had taken place on 16. 12. 1996. In that way, PW. 1 was aged 12 years as per her say, which is totally contrary to the contents of Ex. P-9, the certificate issued by school. Having regard to the nature and quality of the evidence placed on record, in our opinion, P. W. 1 was aged more than 16 years at the relevant time. ( 8 ) IN this context, it is also necessary to mention that PW. 1 had been examined by PW. 8 Dr. Bhageerathi on 19. 12. 95 and PW. 9 Dr. Hemalatha. On examination, both of them found that PW. 1 was used to an act of sexual intercourse and nothing else relevant has been mentioned in this regard favouring either side. 1 had been examined by PW. 8 Dr. Bhageerathi on 19. 12. 95 and PW. 9 Dr. Hemalatha. On examination, both of them found that PW. 1 was used to an act of sexual intercourse and nothing else relevant has been mentioned in this regard favouring either side. At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the accused was also subjected to medical examination and PW. 10 Dr. Santhoshkumar had examined the accused and had opined that there had been no attempt on the part of the accused for sexual intercourse. It is pertinent to mention that the incident in question had taken place on the night of 16. 12. 1995 and the doctors had examined PW. 1 and the accused on 19. 12. 1995 after a lapse of three days and in view of this time gap there is likely hood of physiological changes in the body of the accused and PW. 1. These aspects, in our opinion, clearly show that the evidence placed or record by the prosecution in the form of expert's evidence is not helpful to spell out a case in favour of the prosecution. ( 9 ) THIRDLY, the prosecution has let in evidence with regard to the incident in question. PW. 1 Kumari Puttavva in the course of her evidence has stated in particular that on the relevant evening accused had come to the hostel where she had been staying along with pws. 2 and 3 and of which PW. 4 was the Chairman, PW. 5 was working in the hostel, had informed PW. 1 that her brother was bitten by a dog and her parents ware in his tea shop and on the pretext the accused had taken her to his tea shop-cum-residence and there the accused had forcible sexual intercourse on her on two occasions. It is pertinent to mention that the accused is stated to have had forcible sexual intercourse with PW. 1 twice during that period. It is a settled principal of law that the evidence of victim itself is sufficient to spell out a case in favour of the prosecution provided that her evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. The guiding factors in this behalf would be the behaviour and conduct of the victim. In this context, it is necessary to mention that PW. The guiding factors in this behalf would be the behaviour and conduct of the victim. In this context, it is necessary to mention that PW. 1 in the course of her evidence has stated in particular thus:- The accused inspite of my protest and struggle again had intercourse with me after two hours. The accused had gone out for these two hours and after returning he again had intercourse with me inspite of my protest and under the threat of a knife in his hand and by force. Thereafter, the accused locked me in that room and was sleeping outside the room. In the morning the accused opened the door and gave me some avalakki to eat. . From this part of evidence, it is clear that after the first alleged act of sexual intercourse the accused had gone out for two hours. It is to be borne in mind that PW. 1 had been brought by the accused to his tea shop on the pretext that her brother had been bitten by a dog and her parents had come to the tea shop. Both of them were false. In other words, this was sufficient for PW. 1 to suspect the conduct of the accused. Even as per evidence, PW. 1 had been subjected to sexual intercourse on the first occasion and at that juncture, the accused had gone out for two hours. The normal conduct of a person under the said circumstances would be to take to her heels. On the contrary, PW. 1 stayed back there only possibly on account of her own volition. It is also pertinent to mention that there is nothing in the evidence to show that the accused while going out of the tea shop had locked and restrained her. In the absence of any such positive evidence, the Court will have to go by the evidence on record and cannot afford to act on surmises or conjectures. At this stage, it may not be out of context, if it is mentioned that the age of PW. 1 is more than 16 years and as per the evidence of PWs. 8 and 9 PW. 1 was used to an act of sexual intercourse. From the material on record, it is also seen that PW. 1 had stayed in the tea shop overnight and had breakfast and then left for the hostel. 1 is more than 16 years and as per the evidence of PWs. 8 and 9 PW. 1 was used to an act of sexual intercourse. From the material on record, it is also seen that PW. 1 had stayed in the tea shop overnight and had breakfast and then left for the hostel. It is pertinent to mention that there is not even an iota of evidence placed on record on the part of PW. 1 to the effect that though she had attempted or she had a mind to escape from the clutches of the accused but she could not. PW. 1 in the course of her evidence has also stated that if a male person has to enter the hostel, he will have to take permission from the hostel authorities and only on informing the hostel authorities a boarder is permitted to go out of the hostel. In the course of the evidence of PW1. there is absolutely no whisper that any such formality had been observed before PW. 1 left the hostel. The conduct and behaviour of PW. 1 at the crucial juncture are sufficient to dislodge the case of the prosecution and the evidence on record in this behalf, at any rate, does not inspire confidence in our mind. ( 10 ) AT this stage, it is also necessary to mention that though the prosecution has examined PWs. 2, 3,5 and 7, in the light of the discussions supra, in our opinion, their evidence goes to the backdrop. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the evidence of PW. 4 who was the Chairman of the hostel and he had been incidentally and Advocate earlier. His evidence is to the effect that on 17. 5. 95 when he was in the hostel he was informed of the incident. If any such incident had been brought to the notice of the chairman of a hostel, the normal conduct of the Chairman would have been to inform the police in this behalf. On the contrary, PW. 4 kept mum with crossed fingers in this regard without taking recourse to police and he thought his responsibility is over on sending words to the parents of PW. 1. Evidence of PW. 5 is not very helpful to the prosecution in the light of the discussion supra and so also the evidence of PWs. On the contrary, PW. 4 kept mum with crossed fingers in this regard without taking recourse to police and he thought his responsibility is over on sending words to the parents of PW. 1. Evidence of PW. 5 is not very helpful to the prosecution in the light of the discussion supra and so also the evidence of PWs. 7 and 14, the parents of victim PW. 1 Puttavva. On the contrary, the material on record shows that accused had been examined on 19. 12. 1995 as per Ex. P-8 and the doctor had noticed several injuries on his person which are simple in nature. The accused has contended that on 17. 12. 1995 the accused had demanded PW. 14 of the amount due to him. At that stage, father of pw. 1 i. e. PW. 14 and others assaulted him and he had sustained injuries and according to the accused this incident had led for falsely implicating the accused with the offence in question. It is a settled principle of law that an accused in a case of this nature has been assigned a dormant role to play and it would suffice if he is able to place material either to improbabilise or falsify the case of the prosecution. The touch stone with regard to standard and degree of proof is by preponderance of probabilities. In the light of discussion supra and from the material on record, in our opinion, the prosecution had utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the said offences and the material placed on record by the prosecution in this regard is highly insufficient and unacceptable. On the contrary, the material placed on record by the accused is sufficient to falsify and/or to improbabilise the case of the prosecution. The learned sessions Judge after careful analysis of the evidence on record had recorded a finding of acquittal against the accused. Inspite of reappreciation of the evidence on record, we are unable to differ from the said view. The learned sessions Judge after careful analysis of the evidence on record had recorded a finding of acquittal against the accused. Inspite of reappreciation of the evidence on record, we are unable to differ from the said view. We are also conscious of the fact that the Court has been dealing with a case of alleged sexual assault on a young lass of Harijan community which is more sensitive and at the same time, we are also to observe that it is for the prosecution to place acceptable material in the form of legal evidence in proof of its case and in the absence of the same. Courts of law cannot afford to act on surmises or conjectures and spell out a case in favour of the prosecution and in our opinion if the Court were to resort to this, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. In view of these aspects, we are of the opinion that the judgment impugned is legal and valid and the same does not call for any interference. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment impugned. --- *** --- .