JUDGMENT D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.—This appeal by the State preferred under Section 378 (1) and (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.2006 passed in S.C. No. 38/1997 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, acquitting the respondent/accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 312, 114 read with 34 of IPC and other respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 312, 114 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are:- The respondents/accused came to be tried on the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 312, 114 read with 34 of IPC. It is alleged that the first accused falsely promising the victim-PW. 1 stating that he would marry her, took her to his house, committed rape on her, due to which, she conceived, thereafter he fell back on his promise of marrying her stating that he cannot marry her, unless his sister gets married and till such time, she should not bear any child and thereafter, accused No. 6-father of Accused No. 1 falsely promising PW. 1 that he would perform her marriage with accused No. 1 induced and brought from her house near his garden land and from there, he arranged to send her in a car stating that he would take her to a temple for marriage alongwith Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, thereafter, instead of taking her to the temple, they took her to a Nursing Home and got her pregnancy terminated and thereby, they committed the aforesaid offences. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.1-victim is the daughter of PW.2. PW.7 is the brother and son of PW.1 and PW.2 respectively. They are residents of Golapura coming within the jurisdiction of Thyamagondlu Police Station in Bangalore District. Accused No. 1 is the son of accused No. 6. They are also residents of Golapura village. Other accused persons are relatives of Accused Nos. 1 to 6. Among them, Accused No. 4 is the husband of Accused No. 2 and they are residents of Chanuvalli village, accused No. 3 and accused No. 5 are the residents of Doddabele Village coming within the jurisdiction of Thyamagondlu Police Station. 4. They are also residents of Golapura village. Other accused persons are relatives of Accused Nos. 1 to 6. Among them, Accused No. 4 is the husband of Accused No. 2 and they are residents of Chanuvalli village, accused No. 3 and accused No. 5 are the residents of Doddabele Village coming within the jurisdiction of Thyamagondlu Police Station. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that DW.1-Gangamma is the sister of accused No. 1 and close friend of the victim-PW.1. About six months prior to 28.6.1995 Mariyamma-mother of accused No. 1 and DW. 1 had been to Bangalore in order to call on her ailing sister. On that day, DW.1-Gangamma came to the house of PW.1 and requested PW.2 that as her mother Mariyamma had gone to Bangalore and as she is alone in the house, to send her daughter PW.1 to her house to give her company in the night on that day. PW.2 obliged her request and sent her daughter PW.1 to the house of the accused and DW.1. Accordingly, PW.1 went to the house of the accused at Golapura and slept in that house in the hall alongwith DW. 1-Gangamma-sister of accused No. 1. At about 12 mid night accused No. 1 came to the house. He switched off the lights. Thereafter, he came near PW.1 who was sleeping with his sister woke her up by touching her cheek. She got frightened. Thereafter, he closed her mouth and took her to his room from the hall and there, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her after undressing her. At that juncture, PW. 1 raised cries, but nobody responded to the same. Accused thereafter told PW.1 that he would marry her and she should not reveal his act to anybody. Accordingly, next morning PW.1 returned to her house in a frightened mood, but she did not reveal anything to her mother as accused No. 1 had promised that he would marry her. In the due course of time, PW. 1 on account of the act of the accused conceived. She did not attend her monthly periods. Such being the position, she came to the house of her brother PW.7 who was staying with his wife and children at Bangalore. After she came to the house of her brother, she vomited and that was noticed by her sister-in-law-wife of PW.7. 1 on account of the act of the accused conceived. She did not attend her monthly periods. Such being the position, she came to the house of her brother PW.7 who was staying with his wife and children at Bangalore. After she came to the house of her brother, she vomited and that was noticed by her sister-in-law-wife of PW.7. On being questioned, she informed the same to PW.7 and thereafter, on his advise, she was taken to hospital. There, on examination, she was found carrying by 3½ months. Thereafter, PW.7 inquired with her as to who was responsible for her pregnancy, to which she replied that it was accused No. 1. Thereafter, he sent her to his village Golapura with a direction to inform his mother and in turn to go and ask with the father of accused No. 1-Venkataramanaiah, who is accused No. 6 in this case. Accordingly, PW.1 came to her place Golapura revealed what had transpired till such time to her and thereafter, next day, PW.2-the mother of PW.1 went and approached accused No. 6 and revealed as to the act that has been committed on her daughter by his son-accused No. 1 and requested him to perform the marriage of her daughter with accused No. 1 as promised by him. Accused No. 6 in response to the same replied her stating that he would come back to her after inquiring with his son-accused No. 1 about the same. Thereafter, accused No. 6 told PW.2 that he would perform the marriage of his son with PW.1. In this connection, a panchayathi was also held comprising of PW. 12 and others of the village. 5. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter, on 27.7.1995 accused No. 6 took PW.1 from her house when her mother PW.2 had gone to her work to the field stating that her marriage has been arranged in a temple with accused No. 1 and she should accompany him and her mother would also join and she is waiting near the temple. Accordingly, he brought her from the house near his garden land, from there he made arrangement to send her in a car alongwith accused Nos. 1, 2 , 3 and 5 stating that she is being taken to the temple for performing the marriage. 6. Accordingly, he brought her from the house near his garden land, from there he made arrangement to send her in a car alongwith accused Nos. 1, 2 , 3 and 5 stating that she is being taken to the temple for performing the marriage. 6. Thereafter, PW.1 was brought in a car to a Nursing Home situated at Basaveshwaranagar in Bangalore. There according to the prosecution, the accused got her premature termination of pregnancy done at the hands of PW.5- Medical Officer in the said Nursing Home. After her discharge from the Hospital, PW. 1 and PW.2 came to know in the meantime marriage of Accused No. 1 had been performed with PW.8 who is daughter of PW.9 and PW.13. It is thereafter, PW1 and PW.2 after coming to know that they have been cheated in the case proceeded to Thyamangondlu Police Station and filed complaint-Exhibit.Pl before CW.19-Head Constable who is reported to be dead. CW.19 on the basis of Exhibit.P1, registered a case against the accused, took up investigation and thereafter he handed over further investigation to PW. 15-C.P.I. PW.15 on taking over the investigation proceeded to the scene of occurrence, drew up spot panchanama as per Exhibit. P2 in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4. He also got the victim and Accused No. 1 subjected to medical examination after his arrest, recorded the statement of the witnesses both examined by the prosecution and also cited in the charge sheet. He also obtained the concerned medical records pertaining to both PW. 1 and accused from the respective Doctors who had examined them and thereafter on completion of the investigation, he submitted final report against the accused before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The said case on being committed to the Court of Sessions, charges as aforesaid were framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution in support of its case, in all examined PWs. 1 to 15 and got marked Exhibits.P1 to P13. The accused during the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses got marked Exhibit.D1. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances that were put to them found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 1 to 15 and got marked Exhibits.P1 to P13. The accused during the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses got marked Exhibit.D1. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances that were put to them found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, they were called upon to enter on their defence and to lead any evidence that they have in support of their case. In response to the same, the accused have examined DW.1-Gangamma who is sister of Accused No. 1 and closed their side. 9. The learned trial Judge, on going through the evidence and documents placed on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused and accordingly by his Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2006 acquitted the respondents-accused. 10. The State being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order of acquittal is in appeal before this Court. 11. Sri. N S Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Pleader assailing the impugned Judgment and order, contended that as evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 7 coupled with evidence of PW.5-Medical Officer reveals that Accused No. 1 has committed rape on PW.1 and further as Accused Nos. 1 to 6 have got her pregnancy terminated by bringing her from the house by falsely inducing her stating that she is being taken to a Temple to perform her marriage with Accused No. 1 as against which they took her to a Hospital and got her pregnancy terminated which evidence has not been shaken in any manner in the cross examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge leveled against the accused. Therefore, a case for interference is made out. 12. Insofar as the respondents in this appeal and accused before the trial Court are concerned, they are represented by two sets of counsel. M/s. B Basavaraju & Associates, Advocates have filed power for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. M/s. S. Nagaraj & Associates, Advocates, have filed power for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 13. However, we have not received any worthwhile assistance from either of these counsel who have conspicuously remained absent. On the other hand, one Sri. M/s. B Basavaraju & Associates, Advocates have filed power for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. M/s. S. Nagaraj & Associates, Advocates, have filed power for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 13. However, we have not received any worthwhile assistance from either of these counsel who have conspicuously remained absent. On the other hand, one Sri. Ganesh, Advocate has appeared before the Court and submitted that he is engaged to appear on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 by these respondents and the erstwhile counsel have given their consent for appearance of this counsel. Assistance from this counsel is also only to take us through the evidence and this counsel has sought for further time to make a better preparation of the case and present the same on behalf of the respondents. 14. This case is coming up in the list since 08.10.2012 and the position was well known. However, we find that the attitude on the part of the counsel who have filed power for respondents-accused persons is one of non cooperation bordering on irresponsibility and also showing discourtesy to the Court by non appearance. 15. We find this development very unfortunate. Legal profession is a noble profession is what is reputed to be and the Members of the Bar are well respected in the society. They deserve this position and respect only when they perform their professional duty in a propermanner. Non appearance for clients on whose behalf they have accepted an engagement is virtually a misconduct and an irresponsible act. 16. In the light of the submissions made at the Bar and contentions urged, the point that arises for our consideration is: “whether the Judgment and Order of the trial Court warrants interference and if so in what manner”? 17. In the wake of the examination of the merits of the matter and submissions made at the Bar by the learned Government Pleader and on reapprisal of evidence on record, we are of the view that the matter does not call for interference for reversal of the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court and only it is this situation that is saving the respondents and not because of any effort on the part of the counsel. Counsel, those who had filed power earlier or one who has now sought to appear with no objection from the erstwhile counsel have all been quite irresponsible in their duty towards their clients. 18. Be that as it may, We find from the evidence on record that the prosecution case if at all is supported, it is only by evidence of PW. 1-the victim. No doubt, we are aware of the importance to be attributed to the testimony of a victim, particularly, in a case of an offence under section 376 of IPC and though Mr. Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Pleader submitted that the delay in lodging the complaint which is filed on 28.06.1995 and said to be on an incident that had taken place six months prior to that, should have been overlooked and evidence could have been examined for the purpose of evidence on record, whether has made out a case of the prosecution having proved its version beyond reasonable doubt, in the circumstances, but for the fact, we find evidence of PW. 1 is not corroborated in any manner even by the supporting evidence of PW.2-mother of the victim-PW.1 and PW.7-Elder brother of PW.1, we find insofar as the charge of certain offences punishable under section 376 of IPC is concerned, it is only against Accused No. 1. Even overlooking the precise date of the commission of the offence, the evidence of PW.1 that when Accused No. 1 disturbed her from her sleep when she was sleeping besides sister of Accused No. 1 at around midnight by touching her cheeks, she got alarmed and screamed, but her friend did not wake up at all. This coupled with the fact that she was led to another room with her mouth closed by the acts of the accused and he inspite of resistance committed an act of rape on her is also a little doubtful to be believed as if the resistance was there and if she should have raised an alarm even then perhaps in the dead of the night, neighbours would have heard the scream and would have got up. But, no one came to her rescue is the version of PW.1. 19. But, no one came to her rescue is the version of PW.1. 19. Though she has given an explanation that Accused No. 1 had promised her to accept her as his wife, but after the marriage of his sister and she believed and kept quiet and assuming that to be so, the inconsistency in the evidence of PW.2 with regard to the date of the incident and the date of her daughter going to her brother’s house creates doubt in the version of PW.2 as PW.2-mother has pleaded in her evidence that on the next day morning of her daughter having gone to the house of Accused No. 1 to keep company with the sister of Accused No. 1 by name Gangamma, she noticed that her daughter was showing signs of fright and when she enquired, she said that she was suffering from fever and that PW.2 purchased tablets for her and she has stated that her daughter then went to the house of her brother PW.7 at Dasarahalli, Bangalore and within three days she returned to her house from the Hospital. 20. On the other hand, version of PW.7 is that he had got his sister examined at the Hospital due to noticing of her vomiting while she was in his house as noticed by his wife and report from the Hospital was that she was pregnant about three and half months by then and, therefore, he had asked her to go back to the village and apprise parents of this incident and Accused No. 1 being the cause of her pregnancy etc. His version does not indicate that she went straight from the Hospital to her mother’s house at Gulapura. 21. While the evidence of PW.2 indicates that immediately after her daughter had returned from the house of Accused No. 1, she noticed state of fear and she had been sent to her brother’s place at Bangalore. PW. 1 is not very definite as to up to what interval she had been at her brother’s place at Bangalore. 22. From the spot mahazar drawn at the place of incident-Ex.P2, it is seen that there is a window on the eastern side of the room. If there should have been some hue and cry, neighbours would have definitely heard the same. 22. From the spot mahazar drawn at the place of incident-Ex.P2, it is seen that there is a window on the eastern side of the room. If there should have been some hue and cry, neighbours would have definitely heard the same. It is such circumstances which has made learned Judge of the trial Court come to a conclusion that assuming the incident had taken place, it cannot be said to be one of force and against the will of the victim, but she appeared to be more a consenting partner. 23. In the state of uncertainty that prevails from the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 7 and evidence of PW.1 not to any extent corroborated by any other material on record, we are not convinced that the learned Judge of the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the Accused No. 1 of the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. 24. Insofar as other offences are concerned, it is in two parts, namely, a false assurance and inducement to PW. 1 that Accused No. 6 took her out of her house on the pretext of getting her married to his son at a Temple and, therefore, PW.1 accompanied him. Instead she was taken to his garden land where there was a vehicle waiting and she was sent alongwith Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to a Hospital at Bangalore where she was subjected to premature medical termination of pregnancy. 25. Unfortunately, the factum of Accused No. 6 leading PW. 1 to his farmland and from there being taken to a Hospital at Bangalore and accompanied by any of the accused is not witnessed by any other witnesses and here again it is only the testimony of PW. 1. 26. The learned Judge of the trial Court has doubted and has not felt sure to place full reliance on the testimony of PW. 1 alone for holding Accused Nos. 1 to 6 guilty of the offence under section 420 of IPC as PW. 1 is an adult and if she were to be taken by Accused No. 6 on the ground that she is to get married in a Temple, that she would have left her house without waiting for her mother to return and without any preparation and, therefore, has expressed doubt about acceptability of the version of PW. 1 on this aspect. 1 on this aspect. We do not find that such appreciation and line of reasoning is either against the tenor of evidence or a finding in the nature of a perverse finding. 27. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, except for PW.5-Doctor who is said to be the person who has terminated the pregnancy of PW. 1, no one else has either seen or supported except for the versions of PWs. 1, 2 and 7 with regard to premature termination of pregnancy at the Hospital. 28. Though PW. 1 has stated that payment for the hospital charges was made by Accused No. 3, the Hospital records does not bear this and on the other hand, the person who had got PW.1 admitted at the Hospital as per Exhibit. D4 is one Ramalingaraju and the prosecution has not cared to follow this lead and he has not been examined on the prosecution side. Even PW.5-Doctor does not support the version of PW.1 as it is the evidence of PW.5 that the termination was conducted only with consent of PW. 1 whereas the version of PW. 1 is that she did not consent for premature termination of pregnancy and as she was given an injection, she was not aware of developments due to losing her consciousness. When PW.5 herself does not support this, it will be difficult to accept the version of PW. 1 to record a finding that any of the accused had a hand in the premature termination of pregnancy of PW.1. There is no evidence on record even to indicate that any of the accused had been seen at the Hospital except for evidence of PW. 1. 29. In this state of affairs, evidence does not inspire our confidence to record a finding of guilt in respect of accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 420, 312, 114 read with section 34 of IPC. Likewise, we do not find any material to hold the respondents guilty of the offence punishable under section 493 of IPC. It is because of such evidence on record, we do not find any necessity or scope to interfere with the Judgment and order of acquittal. 30. Accordingly, we answer the point against the prosecution and the appeal is dismissed.