Judgment :- K.L. Manjunath, J. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court-VIII, Bangalore City, dated 18th March, 2005 in S.C.No.350 of 2004 acquitting the respondents-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 376 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, the State is in appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: Respondent No.1 is a practicing Advocate. Respondent No.2 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the mother of the 1st respondent. On 12.4.2003, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before Subramanyanagar police against the respondents. It is alleged in the complainant that she had engaged the services of the 1st respondent to defend her two cases which were pending before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chikballapur and in the said connection, respondent No.1 had called upon the prosecurix to attend his office-cum-residence situated in premises No.3733, Gayathrinagar Main Road. According to her, when she was in his office/residence, he locked the front door and forcibly held her both hands and dragged her to bedroom and had sexual intercourse with her. However, she did not lodged a complaint immediately, but she informed the incident to her mother, who was in Chikballapur and P.W.2-hostel warden. Later on, when she went to the house of the respondents on 11.4.2003, the respondents 2 and 3 abusing her in filthy language and assaulted with hands. Therefore, a complaint was lodged. Based on the same, a case was registered in Crime No.112/2003 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 341, 504 read with 34 of IPC. 3. On appearance, the respondents have not pleaded guilty and they claim to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.13, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and M.O.1 to M.O.7. 4. The Sessions Court after hearing the parties, formulated the following points for its consideration:- Kannadam 5. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Fast Track Court held points No.1 to 4 in negative and acquitted the accused by order dated 18.3.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. 4. The Sessions Court after hearing the parties, formulated the following points for its consideration:- Kannadam 5. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Fast Track Court held points No.1 to 4 in negative and acquitted the accused by order dated 18.3.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. The main contention of the appellant before us is that the evidence let in by the prosecution has not been considered properly and that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.13 has been wrongly appreciated by the Court below, and that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and requests the Court to reverse the finding of the Trial Court. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submits that a false and fictitious complaint has been lodged by P.W.1 and that the Court has rightly acquitted the accused by holding that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what is required to be considered by this Court is that; “Whether the order of acquittal passed by the learned Fast Track Court is justified or not and it calls for interference.” 9. Ex.P1 is a complaint lodged by P.W.1 she had lodged a case against one Ivon D’Souza before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chickballapur on the ground that there was a betrothal function held between the prosecutrix and Ivon D’souza and her marriage was fixed with Ivon D’souza. Taking advantage of the betrothal function, said Ivon D’souza had intercourse on several days with the prosectrix promising her to marry and later on marriage was broken on account of the illegal demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs made from the parents of Ivon D’souza. In the said connection, she had filed a case before J.M.F.C. (Sr.Dn), Chickballapur, claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The said case was handed over to respondent No.1, who was also practicing both in High Court as well in Chickballapur. It is alleged that on 4.4.2003, respondent No.1 had called upon the prosecutrix to see him at his office-cum-residence situated at 3733, 1st Main Road, Gayatrinagar, Bangalore. Believing his words, she went to his office at 4.4.2003. The said case was handed over to respondent No.1, who was also practicing both in High Court as well in Chickballapur. It is alleged that on 4.4.2003, respondent No.1 had called upon the prosecutrix to see him at his office-cum-residence situated at 3733, 1st Main Road, Gayatrinagar, Bangalore. Believing his words, she went to his office at 4.4.2003. While discussing the accused started smoking. As she could not tolerate the smell, she requested the respondent no.1 to put off cigarette. Then, immediately 1st respondent left the office room stating that he would come back after smoking. Thereafter, 1st respondent no.1 came to his office room and latched the door of the office. When she questioned, he immediately held her hands and dragged her to bedroom, which was in front of his office room and made her lie on the bed and forcibly had sexual intercourse. Though she had cried for help, no one came there. Thereafter, respondent no.1 threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences and not to disclose the incident to anybody. It is also stated in Ex.P1 that respondent no.1 told her that he cannot marry her, as his prospectus to become a High Court Judge would be taken away and also threatened her that if she discloses the incident to anyone, he would do away with her life, as he know Mr. Subba Reddy, President of Bar Association and other High Court Judges. Therefore, she was frightened and did not lodge a complaint immediately. It is also stated in Ex.P1 that she immediately went to the hostel and narrated the incident to one Sheela, P.W.2 and that she also intimated by phone to her mother who was in Chickaballapur. Her mother did not rush to Bangalore, as the father of the prosecutrix was suffering from cardiac attack and having come to know the incident, he also fell ill. Thereafter, on 10.3.2003, she contacted P.W.9 Dona Fernandis, who is an N.G.O. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged. In the meanwhile, she also contacted P.W.13- V. Srinivas, an Advocate requesting him to get back the papers from respondent No.1. Later on, the police took up investigation and seized certain material objects. 10. P.W.1 is the prosecutrix. In the beginning refused to give evidence before the Fast Track Court on the ground that she may not get any justice from the Court. Later on, the police took up investigation and seized certain material objects. 10. P.W.1 is the prosecutrix. In the beginning refused to give evidence before the Fast Track Court on the ground that she may not get any justice from the Court. Later, she has given her evidence and has been effectively cross-examined by the respondents. In the cross-examination she has admitted that she had intercourse with Ivon D’souza on several occasions. Since he did not marry her, a case was lodged against him before Karkala Police. As Karkala Police did not take action against Ivon D’souza, at the instance of her mother, another complaint was filed before the Chickaballapura Police. 11. In the cross-examination, she had admitted that on the date of the incident, she was wearing tight jeans pant and a shirt. She has also admitted that shirt button was broken during the court of intercourse. The pant and shirts were intact. She has also stated that accused held her both hands of her back and made her to lie on the bed and later, he kept a pillow on her mouth and forcibly committed rape on her. She has not stated in her evidence that she cried for help. But, in Ex.P1 it is stated that she had cried for help. It has come in the evidence that the residence-cum-office is situated in thickly populated areas and surrounded by houses and shops. If really such an incident has taken place at 4.30 p.m., and the prosecutrix had cried for help, any passers by would have come to her rescue. It has also come in the evidence that on several occasions, she lodged a complaint against Ivon D’souza for having committed rape. It has also come in the evidence that she has lodged a complaint against one Srinivas, who had cited as a witness in a case lodged against Ivon D’souza for having threatened her. The prosecutrix is an engineering graduate and well-educated, she had experiences of lodging the complaint against Ivon D’souza on earlier occasion. It has also come in the evidence that witness Srinivas threatened her and on the same day, she has lodged a complaint. According to the prosecutrix, immediately she informed the incident to the P.W.2 – hostel warden, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. It has also come in the evidence that witness Srinivas threatened her and on the same day, she has lodged a complaint. According to the prosecutrix, immediately she informed the incident to the P.W.2 – hostel warden, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. No explanation is offered by the prosecution while recording the statement of Sheela with whom the prosecutrix had disclosed the incident and she has not been examined. Admittedly, prosecutrix mother is working as a nurse in Chickballapur. She knows the consequences, if rape had been committed on her daughter, she would have advised her daughter to lodge a complaint, as a complaint was already lodged by the prosecutrix against Ivon D’souza for committing rape. 12. Be that as it may, though the incident has taken place on 4.4.2003, till 12.4.2003 complaint has not been lodged. In the meanwhile, it is her case that on 8.4.2003, the prosecutrix went to the house of respondent No.1, on the invitation of respondent no.2, who is the wife of respondent no.1 and stayed at her residence. The conduct of the prosecutrix in visiting the house of the respondent no.1 and later stayed with him along with his wife at his residence after 4.4.2003, would entertain a doubt. It has come in the evidence that the undergarments worn by her on the date of her incident were not torn and the same was not handed over to the police for the purpose of investigation. P.W.3 is the doctor, who has deposed in regard to the pain the victim was suffering from 12.4.2003, when was examined by him. The medical evidence and the nature of allegation have not corroborated. Even otherwise the evidence of P.W.3 in regard to the alleged assault made by respondents 2 and 3 on 11.4.2003, no material was placed before the Court to hold that respondents 2 and 3 assaulted the prosecutrix on 11.4.2003 In order to find out whether a rape was committed on prosecutrix, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W.5 – Dr. H.S. Gayathri. The examination-in-chief of P.W.5 discloses that prosecutrix was in the regular habit of having sexual intercourse. H.S. Gayathri. The examination-in-chief of P.W.5 discloses that prosecutrix was in the regular habit of having sexual intercourse. Though it is stated in Ex.P4 – medical certificate that there was rupture of hymn, no importance can be attached to the same, since the prosecutrix had already lodged a complaint against Ivon D’souza stating that promising to marry her, he had intercourse with her. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W.3 – Srinivas, a practicing Advocate, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. Considering the evidence let-in-by the prosecution, the Trial Court is justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 376 or 504, 323, 341, 342 of the IPC. The learned Judge has also observed that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint, though the alleged incident has taken place on 4.4.2003. The very conduct of the prosecutrix in continuing her relationship with respondent no.1 after 4.4.2003 and staying with him at his residence on 8.4.2003 gives a strong presumption that no such incident has taken place. Considering M.Os.4 and 5 pant and shirt which, were worn by the prosecutrix on the date of the incident can only say that no such incident has taken place. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. We cannot lightly interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in an appeal, as the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the material on record. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court-VIII, Bangalore City, dated 18th March, 2005 in S.C.No.350 of 2004, is confirmed.