JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The accused were tried for offences punishable under Section 341, 376(2)(g) read with 34 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C, but convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 509 I.P.C. Therefore, the State has filed this appeal against acquittal of accused for an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. As submitted by the learned counsel for accused, the accused have not filed any appeal against judgment of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 509 I.P.C. 2. We have heard Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Advocate for State and Sri. R.S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for accused. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: That on 1.12.2000, at about 6.30 p.m., when the victim (a girl aged about 14 years) was returning from her school near the place called Thimmaianadoddi cross accused No. 1 and 2 wrongfully restrained her and committed gang rape on her and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. 4. The victim was examined as P.W. 2. P.W. 1-Dyavaiah and P.W. 3-Chandramma were the parents of P.W. 2, They are residents of Chikkeredoddi within the jurisdictions of Ramanagar Rural P.S. Accused No. 1 Sathisha was the driver of an autorickshaw, Accused No. 1 is a native of Bhramanapura village, Channapattana Taluk, Accused No. 2 is a native of Byalarulidoddi, Ramanagar Taluk. 5. At the relevant time, P.W. 2 (victim) was studying in 8th standard in Government High School at Channapattana. It appears, earlier she was studying in a hostel maintained by the department of social welfare. On 1.12.2000, as there was function in her school, she could not catch the bus to return to her village. Therefore, she was walking from Channapattana to her native place. When she was walking near the place called Thimmaianadoddi, accused No. 1 and 2 wrongfully restrained her and committed gang rape on her. The victim managed to escape from the clutches of the accused. As her clothes were in the grip of accused, she picked up the shirt of accused No. 1 and ran away from the place of incident and reached her house at 3.00 a.m., on the intervening night of 1/2.12.2000, Her parents viz., P.Ws. 1 and 3 were shocked to see their daughter in that condition. They consoled the victim. As her clothes were in the grip of accused, she picked up the shirt of accused No. 1 and ran away from the place of incident and reached her house at 3.00 a.m., on the intervening night of 1/2.12.2000, Her parents viz., P.Ws. 1 and 3 were shocked to see their daughter in that condition. They consoled the victim. She narrated the entire incident to her parents P.Ws. 1 and 8. On the next day morning, P.W. 3 and the victim went to the place of occurrence. They did not find the clothes of victim, however, they found the school bag and a footwear of the victim. The first Information was lodged at 6.00 p.m., on 5.12.2000. The victim was sent to General Hospital, Channapattana. Thereafter, she has also examined by a Radiologist: in Victoria hospital. During investigation, the accused were arrested and the incriminating articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 376(2)(g) read with 34 I.P.C., and also for offences punishable under Section 3(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989. As already stated, the accused were acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., and were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 509 read with 34 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and pay a fine Rs. 100/- with default sentence for an offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 200/- with default sentence for an offence punishable under Section 309 I.P.C. The accused have not. challenged this part of the judgment. Therefore, in this appeal we have to examine whether the prosecution has proved that on 1.12.2000 at about 6.30 p.m., in a bush near the hillock which is at some distance from Thimrnaiahnadoddi cross, accused Nos. I and 2 committed gang rape on the victim and they are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. 6. After going through the medical evidence given by P.W. 7-Dr. S. Venkataraghava and the school admission register extract as per Ex. I and 2 committed gang rape on the victim and they are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. 6. After going through the medical evidence given by P.W. 7-Dr. S. Venkataraghava and the school admission register extract as per Ex. P3 proved through the examination of P.W. 15, we find that victim was born on 10.7.1987, the victim was less than 14 years of age as on the date of incident. In order to prove the incident of rape, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of victim and her parents and the medical evidence given by P.W. 8-Dr. Jayanthi Raju, recovery of incriminating articles and contents of FSL report. 7. P.W. 2 (victim) has deposed; that on 1.12.2000, there was a function in her school. She missed the bus to reach her place. Therefore, she was walking from the school towards her village. When she was walking near a place called Hanumantarayanatittu cross, 3 persons came on a Luna vehicle. They were accused No. 1 and 2 and another person, by name Chikknna of Chikkaeredoddi. Accused No. 2 was riding Luna. Accused No. 1 and P.W. 4 were pillion riders. After seeing the victim, accused No. 2 stopped his vehicle (Luna) for a while and thereafter proceeded. When the victim was walking towards her village, once again accused No. 1 and 2 came on a Luna and stopped the Luna in front of Hanumanathittu temple. The accused persons again followed P.W. 2. When P.W. 2 (victim) was walking near a place called Thinunaianadoddi cross, at about 6.30 p.m., accused No. 1 and 2 were sitting on a culvert. After seeing the victim, accused No. 1 was advancing towards the victim. P.W. 2 got scared and ran towards her village. Accused No. 1 came near her and told her that there was no reason for her to get seared as he was walking to answer nature’s call. When the victim was walking towards her village, accused No. 1 came from behind and caught hold of her and dragged her towards Thimmaiahnadoddi village. At that time, two persons were proceeding on a bicycle. By seeing those persons, accused No. 2 told accused No. 1 that some persons were moving on road and P.W. 2 should be taken to some other place. Accused No. 1 dragged P.W. 2 to a bush. At that time, two persons were proceeding on a bicycle. By seeing those persons, accused No. 2 told accused No. 1 that some persons were moving on road and P.W. 2 should be taken to some other place. Accused No. 1 dragged P.W. 2 to a bush. After those cyclists moved away from the place, accused No. 2 told accused No. 1 that cyclists had gone away. By that time, accused No. 2 had laid a mat near the bush. Accused No. 1 dragged P.W. 2 to the bush. Accused No. 1 and 2 told P.W. 1 to remove her clothes for which the victim refused, Accused No. 2 showed a knife and threatened P.W. 2. Therefore, she removed her clothes. Accused were in drunken state. Accused No. 1 attempted to commit rape on P.W. 2 but she offered resistance. Accused No. 2 held the hands of P.W. 2 and closed her mouth, and thereafter accused No. 1 committed rape on her. Similarly, when accused No. 1 held the hands of P.W. 2, accused No. 2 committed rape on her. In that way, accused No. 1 and 2 committed gang rape on the victim. After the incident of gang rape, accused No. 1. removed a chain, with Anjaneyaswamy dollar and tied it to the neck of victim. Accused No. 1 showed some money and offered money to P.W. 2 but, she refused to receive. The accused threatened P.W. 2 (victim) that if she were to inform the incident to her parents or other persons, not only herself but her family members would be killed by them. It was around 11.30 p.m., in the midnight. The clothes of the victim were with accused No. 2. However, the shirt of accused No. 1 was lying by the side of P.W. 2, P.W. 2 took the shirt and ran away towards the forest. Accused No. 1 and 2 tried to chase her and they fell into a pit. P.W. 2 (victim) wore that shirt and reached her house at 3.00 a.m., on 2.12.2000. Her parents were shocked to see her in that condition. P.W. 2 (victim) narrated the incident to her parents. On the following day, P.W. 1 enquired P.W. 4-Chikkanna and learnt the names of accused No. 1 and 2. P.W. 2 (victim) wore that shirt and reached her house at 3.00 a.m., on 2.12.2000. Her parents were shocked to see her in that condition. P.W. 2 (victim) narrated the incident to her parents. On the following day, P.W. 1 enquired P.W. 4-Chikkanna and learnt the names of accused No. 1 and 2. On the following day, i.e., on 2.12.2000, victim and her mother (P.W. 3) came to the place of incident: and searched for the clothes of victim. They did not find the clothes of victim, however, they found the school bag and a footwear of the victim. On the same day, P.W. 1 informed the Incident to P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy who assured P.W. 1 to convene a panchayat. Therefore, P.W. 1 kept quite, however, no panchayat was convened. Therefore, on 5.12.2000, P.W. 1, the victim along with P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy reached the police station and lodged the first information. The police enquired the victim about the incident. P.W. 2 narrated the incident to police. On 6.12.2000, P.W. 1 was sent for examination to Government Hospital in Channapattana. The lady doctor examined her. P.W. 2 has identified the mat. as MO.6. During cross-examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that in the month of October 2000. she was staying in the Government Hostel at Channapattana. P.W. 2 has admitted that she was removed from the hostel. As per the version of P.W. 2 that on 31.10.2000, she had left the hostel to see her sister at Mandya without, informing the hostel authorities. Therefore, she was removed from the hostel. During cross-examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that Mandya police had handed over her to the hostel authorities. As could be seen from the tenor of cross-examination, the defence has sought to establish that P.W. 2 was in the habit of leaving the hostel without informing the hostel authorities and she was frequently visiting the lodges in Mandya. P.W. 2 was found in a lodge when the police officials raided the lodge. Therefore, the police took P.W. 2 to their custody and handed over P.W. 2 to hostel authorities. On account of these incidents, not only P.W. 2 but also her friend by name Bhagya were removed from the hostel. 8. P.W. 2 has deposed that the accused had dragged her to a distance of 1/4th kilometer from the road to the place of incident. On account of these incidents, not only P.W. 2 but also her friend by name Bhagya were removed from the hostel. 8. P.W. 2 has deposed that the accused had dragged her to a distance of 1/4th kilometer from the road to the place of incident. She was dragged through agricultural lands where there were standing ragi crops and mulberry crops and she had suffered injuries to her legs. P.W. 2 has deposed that accused No. 1 was firmly holding her mouth. P.W. 2 has deposed that the accused had committed gang rape on her. She had suffered pain but she cannot say whether there was bleeding from her vagina. P.W. 2 has deposed that the accused had committed gang rape on her and she had suffered scratches on her back and on her hips. P.W. 2 has deposed; that the accused had committed gang rape on her for a period of four hours. She had suffered injuries on her private parts. P.W. 2 has deposed that she was not wearing the under garment before the incident of rape. The accused after committing rape were smoking cigarettes. When the accused were smoking cigarettes, she ran away from the place. When she was running from the place of incident, she suffered injuries as her body come in contact with thorny bushes. She reached her house at 3.00 a.m. Her parents were sleeping. She knocked the door and they woke up and she narrated the incident to them. On the next day, she woke up at 6.00 a.m. On the next day morning, she went to the police station along with her father Dyavaiah (P.W. 1) and P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy. The complaint was written as narrated by P.W. 1. On that day, the police sent back the victim, her father and P.W. 9 stating that it was a street quarrel and they did not register any case. 9. We are conscious of legal position that evidence of the victim of rape cannot be viewed with suspicion at the same time the Court has to scrutinise evidence of victim of rape. The evidence of P.W. 2 that accused had committed gang rape on her for about four hours between 6.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. after dragging her to a distance of half a kilometer does not find support from medical evidence. 10. P.W. 8- Dr. The evidence of P.W. 2 that accused had committed gang rape on her for about four hours between 6.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. after dragging her to a distance of half a kilometer does not find support from medical evidence. 10. P.W. 8- Dr. B. Jayanthi Raju, who has examined the victim at 8.30 p.m. on 5.12.2000 has deposed: “Since four years I am working as a Gynecologist: at General Hospital Channapatna. On 5.12.2000 I received a requisition from the P.S.I., Channapatna Rural Police Station, to examine one girl by name Kalpana whether she was subjected to rape or not. I have examined Kumari Kalpaoa on the same day. I recorded the narration of the incident, stated by the victim and she told me that she was kidnapped by two persons on 1.12.2000 at about 6.30 p.m. at Genddekatedoddi, Thirugumule Chakkeredoddi and was raped by them. On examination it was found that she was 4 feet and was weighing 38 K.G. and other physical examinations were found normal. On examination on breasts no marks of external injuries. The breasts were developed to the 2nd stage. Scanty axillary hair seen no other external injuries rent or past seen. Examination of the external genitalia (1) Examination of the valva no injuries, there were no hairs. (2) There were scanty hairs over the lebiamejoras. (3) There was some yellowish white discharge over the vaginal orifice. (4) Hymen not intact. (5) Vagina admits easily one finger. Material taken. (1) Swab taken from the vaginal orifie. (2) Swab taken from the posterior fomix. (3) Public hairs taken and sent for chemical analysis. All the three samples sent for chemical analysis to forensic laboratory. To get the opinion regarding the age I sent the victim to the Radiologist, and after receiving the report from FSL, I was of the opinion that (1) The time lapse of the incidence and examinations of the victim was 4 days 2 hours. (2) The important evidence of hymen tears could not be made out because the hymen was not intact and there was no abrasion or fresh bleeding from the posterior commissure. This suggests that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse, but not recent. The fact that vagina easily admits one finger also suggests sexual Intercourse, but not full penetration. (2) The important evidence of hymen tears could not be made out because the hymen was not intact and there was no abrasion or fresh bleeding from the posterior commissure. This suggests that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse, but not recent. The fact that vagina easily admits one finger also suggests sexual Intercourse, but not full penetration. Final opinion can be given that the victim had sexual intercourse but the evidence of rape can be confirmed only with circumstantial evidence. I issue a certificate as per Ex. P8 and my signature is P.8(a).” 11. Ex. P8 is the certificate issued by P.W. 8. Thus, from the above evidence we find that the victim had not suffered any external injuries. There were no injuries on her genitalia. The hymen was not intact. There was no bleeding from the posterior commissure. P.W. 8 has opined that the victim, was subjected to sexual intercourse but not recently. She has opined that the victim, had sexual intercourse but whether she was subjected to rape has to be confirmed only with the circumstantial evidence. As per evidence of the victim, she was subjected to gang rape by accused Nos. 1 and 2. She has given duration as four hours. She has deposed that she was dragged by the accused for about half a kilometer and after the incident she ran to her house and she had come in contact with thorny bushes. Thus, we find that evidence of victim does not find support from medical evidence. 12. The evidence of the victim that she ran to her house after the incident of rape looks improbable. The place of incident is at a distance of about 2½ kms. from her house. If the victim had been subjected to gang rape by the accused, a reasonable doubt would arise as to whether the victim after the incident had enough strength and courage to run from the place of incident to her house. As per the evidence of victim she reached her house at about 3.00 a.m. However, she has not deposed as to where was she staying between 11.30 p.m. and 3.00 a.m. The mother of the victim namely P.W. 3-Chandramma has deposed that on the following day, i.e., On 2.12.2000, the victim had gone to school. In the attendance register extract marked as Ex. In the attendance register extract marked as Ex. P3 we find that marks indicating presence or absence of victim on 2.12.2000, 5.12.2000 and 6.12.2000 are altered. 13. The victim has deposed on the following day. She along with her father and P.W. 9 had gone to police station, but the police refused to receive the complaint stating that it was a street fight. Contrary to this evidence, P,W.2-father of victim has deposed that he intimated the incident, to P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy and thought of convening a panchayath. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that the victim was not aware of names of the accused when incident took place. On the following day she came to know of the names of the accused from P.W. 4-Chikkanna, P.W. 4- Chikkanna, who according to the victim was in the company of the accused has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the first information P.W. 1 has stated that as he was not aware that the first information should be lodged forthwith he did not lodge first information till 5.12.2000. 14. The victim has deposed that after the incident she wore shirt of accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 had tied to her neck a black thread with a dollar on which deity of Anjaneya Swamy was embossed. The victim has deposed on the following day that she visited the place of incident along with her mother but she did not find her clothes. She only found her school bag and a footwear. As per the investigation, the clothes of the accused were seized under mahazar as per Exs. P11. From the contents of Ex. P11 and the evidence of P.W. 12 we find that portion of mahazar indicating seizure of a shirt and a black thread with Anjaneyaswamy dollar are subsequently inserted and the mahazar as per Ex. P11 was written in the land of the One Dollaiah, Vibhutikere village. The shirt stated to be that of Accused No. 1 was produced by P.W. 9-Omkaraswarny. The evidence on record does not disclose as to how P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy came in possession of the shirt of the accused and a black thread with Anjaneyaswamy dollar. At this juncture, it. is necessary to recall that P.W. 5 had visited the police station on 5.12.2000 and she was subjected to medical examination on the same day. The evidence on record does not disclose as to how P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy came in possession of the shirt of the accused and a black thread with Anjaneyaswamy dollar. At this juncture, it. is necessary to recall that P.W. 5 had visited the police station on 5.12.2000 and she was subjected to medical examination on the same day. There was no impediment for the victim to produce these material objects before the police. P.W. 1 has not deposed that she had handed over these material objects to P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy. As per the evidence of the victim, these material objects were in her possession. Therefore, there was no need for the Investigating Officer to seize them near the land of one Dollaiah of Vibhuthikere village. 15. We also see from the contents of the station house daily extract marked as Ex. C1 that on 1.12.2000 at 8.30 p.m. P.W. 1 had lodged a complaint with Channapatna Police. In the report, it is stated by P.W. 1 that Accused No. 2-Shiva Raju had attempted to spoil the victim when she was returning from school on the evening of 1.12.2000. P.W. 1 had requested the police to provide necessary protection to her daughter. This report was registered as NCR No. 215/2000 P.W. 20-K. Mariswamy, the then ASI of Channapatna Police station during the cross-examination has admitted that on 2.12.2000 at 4.30 p.m. the then H.C.M. Rangaiah had received the complaint of eve teasing of P.W. 2 by Shivaraj and another person near Chekkeredoddi Cross and the same was registered as NCR 219/2000 and he has identified the entries in the Station House register extract and the relevant entry in the Station House Register is marked as Ex. C1. P.W. 20 has deposed that in the first information lodged by P.W. 1, it is not stated that the victim was wearing a shirt (marked as M.O. 1), Therefore, there are reasons to believe that shirt marked as M.O. 1 and Anjaneyaswamy dollar with black thread marked as MO. 2 were planted during investigation to connect the accused with the crime. 16. The victim has deposed that her clothes were not found near the place of incident. The clothes of the victim marked as M.Os. 2 were planted during investigation to connect the accused with the crime. 16. The victim has deposed that her clothes were not found near the place of incident. The clothes of the victim marked as M.Os. 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and a mat, which the victim had seen near the place of incident, marked as M.O. 6 were seized on 5.12.2000 under the Mahazar as per Ex. P9. As per the contents of Ex. P9 the mahazar relating to the seizure of these clothes was prepared in the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanagar. These clothes were produced by P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy. The evidence relating to seizure of these clothes under Ex. P9 is given by P.W, 10-Nagaraj P.W. 10-Nagaraj has deposed that about 1½ years prior to date of his examination before Court, P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy took him to Ramanagara Police station. P.W. 9 handed over the clothes marked as M.Os. 3, 4, 5 and 7 to the police and they were seized under Ex. P9. The evidence on record does not disclose as to how the clothes of the victim, which were missing from the place of the incident came in possession of P.W. 9. P.W. 1 has not deposed that he had handed over the clothes of the victim to the police. Therefore, the evidence of victim that the accused had taken away her clothes from the place of the incident does not inspire confidence. 17. The FSL report marked as Ex. P13 indicates presence of bloodstains on the mat and the shirt marked as M.O. 1 and 6. As already stated the evidence relating to seizure of these incriminating articles is highly improbable. Therefore, no importance can be attached to the blood stains found on the mat and the shirt. 18. The evidence of P.W. 1-the father of the victim suffers from various discrepancies. P.W. 1 has deposed that on the intervening night of 1/2.12.2000 at 3.00 a.m. the victim came to house. She was wearing a white shirt and also there was a black thread with Anjaneyaswamy dollar in her neck. She narrated the incident to P.W. 1. He informed the elders of the village namely P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy and others. P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy told him that a panchayath would he convened. Therefore, he waited for three or four days. She was wearing a white shirt and also there was a black thread with Anjaneyaswamy dollar in her neck. She narrated the incident to P.W. 1. He informed the elders of the village namely P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy and others. P.W. 9-Omkaraswamy told him that a panchayath would he convened. Therefore, he waited for three or four days. Since no panchayath was convened and nobody came to convene panchayath he lodged first information on 5.12.2000. In this way, P.W. 1. has tried to explain the delay in lodging the first information. In the first information, P.W. 1 has stated that as he was an illiterate person there was delay in lodging the first information. P.W. 3 (mother of the victim) has deposed that from 2.12.2000 to 5.12.2000 her husband (P.W. .1) and P.W. 9-Omkaraswarny were regularly visiting the police station. P.W. 2-victim has deposed that on 2.12.2000, P.W. 2, P.W. 1 and P.W. 9 had gone to the police station but the police refused to receive the complaint, on the ground that it was a street, quarrel. Thus, we find divergent, and contradictory versions relating to the delay in lodging the first information. In this background, if we consider the contents of Ex. C1, the defence version that the accused had teased the victim on 1.12.2000 and a complaint was lodged on 2.12.2000 looks probable. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3-the parents of the victim that the accused 1 and 2 had committed rape on victim and victim reached the house at 3.00 a.m. on the intervening night of 1/2.12.2000 and narrated the incident to them does not inspire confidence. Thus, in view of the highly discrepant evidence given by the victim, her parents, lack of medical evidence and inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the report given by P.W. 1 against the accused that they were teasing her daughter, we hold the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused I and 2 had committed rape on the victim. 19. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused, We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 20. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.