JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J (oral). The State felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No.9 of 2005/04 decided on 31.3.2006, whereby the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the accused, was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 452 and 376 of IPC, allegedly committed house trespass and for rape on a deaf and dumb prosecutrix aged about 14 years. 2.Heard and gone through the record. 3.Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.10.2003, at about 11.45 a.m., prosecutrix was watching television in one of the rooms of her old house. Mother of the prosecutrix (PW-4) had gone to collect seeds in the vicinity. Her father, Kali Dass (PW-1) was in the adjacent new house, where he heard the sound of ‘Hoon’ emanating from the room of old house. He went there and found that the room was bolted from inside. Thus, with the help of a small stick, he opened the door and noticed that the accused was lying on the prosecutrix in her bed with her trouser slipped to her knees. The accused was totally naked. Kali Dass tried to catch hold of the accused from thread of JANTAR around his neck, but it got broken. Taking chance, the accused ran away from the room after picking up his underwear and Chappal, but, left behind his shirt. Thereafter, Kali Dass shouted for his cousin PW Dalela Ram. Both of them had tried to chase him, but the accused could not be apprehended. He entered his house and bolted it from inside. 4.The Police was informed telephonically. Police reached the spot and recorded the statement of PW-1 Kali Dass under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated in the FIR Ex.PW-1 6/A. 5.The prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-6, Dr. (Mrs.) Devender Bhangal, in Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. She though noticed blood on her salwar and also took the vaginal swab but neither semen nor any injury was noticed. There was also no tear on the private part of the prosecutrix, nor there was any fresh bleeding, however, it only showed rugosity. Significantly, the doctor when cross-examined in the court stated that there was nothing to suggest that the prosecutrix was subjected to any recent sexual assault within 24 hours of her examination. There was also no tear on the private part of the prosecutrix, nor there was any fresh bleeding, however, it only showed rugosity. Significantly, the doctor when cross-examined in the court stated that there was nothing to suggest that the prosecutrix was subjected to any recent sexual assault within 24 hours of her examination. 6.The complainant Kali Dass deposed that the mother of the prosecutrix had also come to the spot and he had asked his wife to take care of the prosecutrix. She was also examined as PW-4 in the learned trial court and categorically stated that on her enquiring, the prosecutrix told that she was not subjected to any intercourse. Even the medical findings also do not support the allegation of rape on the prosecutrix. Further, on forensic examination semen stains were also not noticed and the source of blood stands not established, which otherwise could be menstrual blood. 7.PW-2 and PW-3 though stated that they had seen accused running naked, wearing only his underwear and chappal proceeding towards the house of Mast Ram, but their statements did not inspire confidence because they appear to have been introduced to lend assurance to the prosecution case being close relatives. We also find that shirt Ex.P-2, which was recovered form the spot could not be connected with the accused in any manner. PW-1 Kali Dass did not say even a word that the shirt of the accused was taken into possession from the spot and handed over to the Police. 8.The prosecutrix was also examined in the court with the help of the interpreter PW-18 Smt. Vinay Kumari, Principal of deaf and dumb school, Dhalli, where she was posted for the last about eight years. When the questions were asked from the prosecutrix through her by signs and gestures, the prosecutrix was found to have also did not properly communicated the version except that something had happened with her, but she did not exactly communicate who was the person and where he had gone. The learned trial court did not bother to record the signs made by the prosecutrix in answer to the questions put to her and also the manner in which the prosecutrix was made to understand by the interpreter.Learned trial court appears to have recorded interpretation of such signs, which is not in conformity with Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act. 9.Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to subscribe to the view of Shri M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General that there are grounds to convert acquittal into conviction in this case as the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal filed by the State is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case.