ORAL ORDER (PER A.S. GADKARI, J.) : This is an Application as contemplated under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, for leave to file an Appeal, against the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd January 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.27 of 2013. The Respondent / original accused was charged under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The record discloses that, it is the prosecution case, that in the month of September 2012 the victim girl was about 14 years of age and was a student of 8th standard. She was studying in Kanya Shala at Satara. On 20th September 2012 she had been to the school at about 11.30 a.m. However, her teacher told her that on that day there was a holiday for the school and therefore the victim girl proceeded to her home from Shaniwar Peth. When the victim girl reached near Chintamani Hospital, the Respondent met her near one pan shop / shack. The victim girl was knowing the Respondent as he used to reside nearby to her house. The Respondent threatened the victim girl to kill her by showing a knife and compelled her to go along with him. The victim girl out of fear, followed the Respondent upto Ajinkya Tara Fort. The Respondent by holding her hand took her into the bushes and in spite of her resistance, committed rape on her. When the victim girl told him that she wanted to go to her house, the Respondent assaulted her by a wooden log. 3. The victim girl reached her home at about 7.00 p.m. on the same day and disclosed the incident to her mother. Thereafter the victim girl also informed the said incident to her father and then they approached the police station and lodged a complaint. On the same day at the night time, the victim girl was referred to Civil Hospital, Satara for medical examination. The clothes of the victim were seized by the police under Panchanama. After registration of the said complaint, police started investigation, visited the spot of incident, drew Panchanama of the said spot. The Respondent was arrested. He was also referred for medical examination to Civil Hospital, Satara. The clothes of the victim were seized by the police under Panchanama. After registration of the said complaint, police started investigation, visited the spot of incident, drew Panchanama of the said spot. The Respondent was arrested. He was also referred for medical examination to Civil Hospital, Satara. During the course of investigation, on 23rd September 2012 the police took search of the house of the Respondent and seized a knife from his house under the Panchanama. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the Respondent under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara after complying with the provisions of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code committed the case to the Court of Sessions as contemplated under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The Learned Trial Court framed charges against the Respondent below Exhibit 4. The said charges were read over and explained to the Respondent in vernacular language to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties to the said case, has acquitted the Respondent / original accused from the charges levelled against him. The State has preferred the present Application for leave to file an Appeal against the said impugned judgment and order dated 3rd January 2014 as stated herein above. 5. With the help of the learned APP, we have carefully scrutinized the entire record placed before us by the learned APP. We have also perused the notes of evidence annexed to the present Application. The learned APP submitted that the learned Trial Court had committed grave error in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has wrongly acquitted the Respondent from the charges levelled against him. The learned APP therefore submitted that the present Application may be allowed and leave may be granted to the Applicant to file an Appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd January 2014. 6. A bare perusal of the testimony of the victim girl i.e. P.W.2 – Ashwini Sawant leads us to disbelieve her version about abduction and rape. P.W.2 – Ashwini Raju Sawant i.e. the victim during the course of her cross examination has admitted that near Chintamani Hospital, there were other hospitals. 6. A bare perusal of the testimony of the victim girl i.e. P.W.2 – Ashwini Sawant leads us to disbelieve her version about abduction and rape. P.W.2 – Ashwini Raju Sawant i.e. the victim during the course of her cross examination has admitted that near Chintamani Hospital, there were other hospitals. She has further admitted that there were residential premises and shops also on both sides of the said road and the said road was always busy with people. Therefore the incident as narrated by the victim girl, that in the morning at about 11.30 a.m. in the broad day light the Respondent on a busy road dared to threaten the victim at the point of a knife cannot be believed by us. The victim girl has further admitted in her cross examination that near the said pan shop / shack she herself and the Respondent talked for 5 minutes and thereafter they proceeded to Shankaracharya Math. She has further admitted that the Respondent was proceeding ahead and she was following him. That there was a distance of 20 to 25 ft. between both of them. 7. It is surprising to note here that it is the case of the victim girl that the Respondent at the point of a knife threatened her and compelled her to go with him, whereas in the present case the victim girl has admitted in the cross examination that the Respondent was proceeding ahead and she was following him. We therefore find that the version of the prosecutrix, as far as her abduction at the hands of the Respondent is concerned, is improbable and unreliable. 8. The victim girl in her cross examination has further admitted that near Shankaracharya Math there were 5 to 6 houses. It appears to us that, even though there was a strong opportunity for the victim girl to raise an alarm and to attract the attention of the people towards her, she did not avail of the same and just followed the Respondent thereafter for a period of 10 minutes by walking through Nagzari Road. 9. The next circumstance is of the torn clothes of the victim girl and the bloodstains on the clothes. 9. The next circumstance is of the torn clothes of the victim girl and the bloodstains on the clothes. P.W.3 – Rekha Raju Sawant i.e. the mother of the victim girl has stated that she saw that there were bloodstains on the slip of the victim girl and also saw that the slip and kurta of the victim were in torn condition on its back side. This version has been falsified by the evidence of P.W.4 – Swati Ballal i.e. the panch witness who has specifically admitted that she did not notice blood on the slip and both the slip and the kurta were not torn on its back side. Even P.W.10 – Dr. Atul Lipare, Medical Officer has admitted that he did not notice that the clothes of the victim were torn. In these circumstances, the version of the victim girl that the Respondent by tearing her clothes, sexually assaulted her becomes doubtful. It is further to be noted that the C.A. report which is at Exhibit 60 discloses that no blood was detected on the clothes of the victim girl. Thus the Panchanama which is at Exhibit 25 of seizure of clothes of the victim girl instead of corroborating her version, has created doubt in the mind of this Court. 10. P.W.9 – Dr. Umesh Hendre, Medical Officer after examining the victim girl has opined that she was habituated for sexual intercourse. P.W.10 - Dr. Atul Lipare, Medical Officer, who is also a Gynecologist has stated in his evidence that the victim girl stated him about the sexual assault in the afternoon and also stated that a similar incident had also occurred with her in the previous month. It is important to note here that the victim girl has stated that a similar incident had occurred with her in the previous month also to, P.W. 10 - Dr. Atul Lipare, Medical Officer, but she did not state the said fact in the F.I.R. or before the Court. It appears from the record that even she did not disclose the said fact i.e. about the previous similar incident to her parents. It further appears that the victim girl did not state that the Respondent himself was the author of the said act on the previous occasion. 11. It appears from the record that even she did not disclose the said fact i.e. about the previous similar incident to her parents. It further appears that the victim girl did not state that the Respondent himself was the author of the said act on the previous occasion. 11. The Medical Officers in their testimony have admitted that during the course of investigation neither the investigating agency collected the medical case papers nor these witnesses handed over the said case papers to the police. If the version of the Medical Officers that they did not hand over the case papers to the Investigating Officer is believed to be true, then question arises that whether the medical case papers filed with Exhibit 40 are the same papers or not. It appears to us that on the medical case papers which are at Exhibit 43, no seal of the hospital is affixed and there is also no name of P.W.10 – Dr. Atul Lipare, Medical Officer on the said case papers. The perusal of C.A. report which is at Exhibit 60 shows that no blood was found in the nail clipping of the victim girl. The evidence of P.W.9 - Dr. Umesh Hendre, Medical Officer discloses that he has specifically stated that the samples of nail clipping of the victim girl were not taken as those were not in grown up condition and therefore it creates doubt about the authenticity of the version of the prosecution, about the tampering with the samples of the articles seized or taken by the police during the course of investigation and its production before the Court. It is further to be noted that though the medical samples were collected on 21st September 2012, they were sent for examination on 3rd October 2012. The said fact is apparent from the evidence of P.W.11 – A.P.I. Jotiram Patil, the Investigating Officer. In such circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the muddemal property cannot be ruled out. 12. We have further noticed that in the evidence of P.W.9- Dr. Umesh Hendre, Medical Officer he has expressed a clear opinion that the perusal of C.A. report does not indicate any semen of the Respondent in the vaginal swab of the victim girl and therefore according to the said witness, the result would be no case of sexual assault. 13. We have further noticed that in the evidence of P.W.9- Dr. Umesh Hendre, Medical Officer he has expressed a clear opinion that the perusal of C.A. report does not indicate any semen of the Respondent in the vaginal swab of the victim girl and therefore according to the said witness, the result would be no case of sexual assault. 13. The knife which was seized at the instance of the Respondent by effecting the seizure Panchanama which is at Exhibit 31, was not referred to the Medical Officer and there is no evidence on record which suggests that the injuries on the person of the victim were caused by the said knife. 14. After taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, we have no doubt in our mind that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the Respondent and the Learned Trial Judge after taking into consideration the various aspects of the case has rightly acquitted the Respondent from the charges levelled against him. Accordingly we dismiss the present Application for leave to file an Appeal. Leave rejected.