JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal. 3. The respondent (accused) was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao (Trial Court), in Sessions Case no. 11 of 2010, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 504, 323, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The said Sessions Case No. 11 of 2010 was a culmination of charge sheet filed by Colva Police against accused. The charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 I.P.C. only, and the substance of the charge was that at or about 02.30 hours on 02/12/2009, near Maria Hall, Benaulim and in the car (Captiva Black Colour) bearing No. GA-09/D-0001, the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix, a Russian National and thereafter caused the evidence connected with the offence namely the underwear of the victim to disappear with an intention to escape from legal punishment. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses in support of its case. The case of the accused was of denial and that a false case was filed against him for reasons stated in detail by him in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. 4. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused raped the prosecutrix on the night of 02/12/2009 in his car and that he destroyed the underwear (panty) of the prosecutrix. The accused therefore came to be acquitted. The State is aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal. 5. Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assailing the impugned judgment, submitted that there was no dispute that the prosecutrix and her friend Kseneya Kvyhtovskaya were sitting in the Boomerang restaurant on 02/12/2009 and the accused joined them by about 11.15 a.m. He submitted that besides the evidence of the prosecutrix, there was evidence of the Manager of the said Boomerang Hotel and Restaurant at Colva, namely PW8, Shri Rocky Quadrose and the barman namely Vithal Lamani. The evidence of these two witnesses established that the prosecutrix and her friend were in the company of the accused and they left the said Bar at about 2.00 a.m. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that though there was no medical evidence of rape committed by accused on the prosecutrix, however, there was evidence of injuries sustained by the prosecutrix on relevant parts of the body, suggesting violence to her body. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor read out the evidence of PW6, Dr. Silvano Sapeco and pointed out the injuries no. 7, 8, 10 and 11 which were all on the thigh of the prosecutrix. He next submitted that the said evidence of injuries sustained by the prosecutrix read with the testimony of the prosecutrix namely PW 19 sufficiently established the case of the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 376 as well as Section 201 of I.P.C. He submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix was wholly reliable and not shaken in material aspects. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and order is illegal and perverse and is bound to be quashed and set aside. He, therefore, urged that appeal be allowed and the accused be convicted of the said offences. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the medical evidence not only did not support the prosecution but further destroyed the case of the prosecution since the DNA testing done by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad (C.F.S.L.) showed that the accused was not the contributor of the male DNA recovered from vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix and that the contributor of the male DNA recovered from the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix was some other male person. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the close friend of the prosecutrix namely Kseneya Kvyhtovskaya (PW21) did not support the case of the prosecution and in fact stated contrary. He further submitted that the injuries described by PW6 were not consistent with the story of rape as deposed to by the prosecutrix. He further submitted that there were three versions given by the prosecutrix the first one being only of outraging modesty; second being of an attempt to rape and last one being of actual rape, due to which the prosecution case could not at all be relied upon. He further submitted that there were three versions given by the prosecutrix the first one being only of outraging modesty; second being of an attempt to rape and last one being of actual rape, due to which the prosecution case could not at all be relied upon. He pointed out that the accused had not taken the prosecutrix to the said bar and restaurant and that she had herself gone there with her friend and in fact had sent a message to the accused to the effect “If you want to do something, just do it. This is for season 2009”. He read out various portions from the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW19) and pointed out as to how she had avoided to answer various material questions by saying “I do not remember”. He submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix totally lacks truthfulness and in no circumstances can it inspire confidence. He further added that the said testimony in fact reveals falsehood. He, therefore, urged that there is no scope for interference, with the impugned Judgment of acquittal, in the present appeal. 7. I have minutely gone through the entire record and proceedings of the said Sessions Case. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The prosecutrix was initially examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Gayatri Kulkarni (PW5) on 02/12/2009 at around 2.00 a.m. to 3.30 a.m.. But her deposition as well as the hurt certificate (Exhibit 38) issued by her only reveals that the prosecutrix had sustained some bruises and scratch marks. Prosecutrix was then examined on 05/12/2009 by a Medical Board of Goa Medical College consisting of Dr. Silvano Sapeco (PW6), Dr. Udhav Pawar and Dr. Beena. No doubt 13 injuries were noted on the exposed parts on the body of the prosecutrix out of which injury no. 7 was yellowish green bruise of 6 cm x 2cm on the right mid outer aspect of thigh; injury no. 8 was brownish bruise with yellow hue bruise of 2cm x 1.5cm on right outer and lower forth of thigh; injury no. 10 was soft to hard scabbed transverse scratch abrasion of 2.5 cms. along inner medial aspect of right thigh; and injury no. 11 was yellowish green bruise of 1.5 cm x 1 cm, seen at right thigh, 4cms away from injury no. 10. 10 was soft to hard scabbed transverse scratch abrasion of 2.5 cms. along inner medial aspect of right thigh; and injury no. 11 was yellowish green bruise of 1.5 cm x 1 cm, seen at right thigh, 4cms away from injury no. 10. Besides the fact that the said injuries were not consistent with the version of the prosecutrix as deposed to by her, further fact was that the Medical Board opined that in the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim girl, no opinion as to the recent forcible sexual intercourse could be given. The Medical Board further opined that the victim was accustomed to sexual activity. Presence of old healed hymenal tears were suggestive of the victim being accustomed to sexual activity. The vaginal swabs and smears were taken by Board for serological and DNA testing. 9. Report dated 25/11/2010 of C.F.S.L. prepared by the Senior Scientific Officer, revealed that as per DNA testing, the accused was not the contributor of the male DNA recovered from the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix and that the contributor of the male DNA recovered from the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix was some other male person. As per the C.F.S.L. Report, no blood was detected on clothes of the victim or of the accused; neither semen nor spermatozoa was detected on the clothes of the victim or of the accused or on the urethral swab of the accused, urethral smear slides of the accused, pubic hair of the accused or vaginal smear slides of the prosecutrix. Though, human male DNA was detected in the said vaginal swabs, however, as already stated above the accused was not the contributor of the said male DNA recovered from the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix. 10. In view of the specific contrary medical evidence, as has been rightly held by the trial Court, the only evidence left against the accused was the oral testimony of the prosecutrix which could have been acted upon only if it was found to be truthful, without any suppression of true facts and was inspiring confidence of the Court. 11. No doubt, in her deposition the prosecutrix (PW 19) gave a story of rape allegedly committed by the accused on her, inter alia, by stating that the accused penetrated his penis into her vagina, against her wish and thereafter forcibly raped her. 11. No doubt, in her deposition the prosecutrix (PW 19) gave a story of rape allegedly committed by the accused on her, inter alia, by stating that the accused penetrated his penis into her vagina, against her wish and thereafter forcibly raped her. However, in the cross-examination, the prosecutrix was completely shaken and in fact was proved to be a false witness who could not at all be relied upon. 12. Following facts had come on record in the testimony of the prosecutrix : (i) Though in the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix tried to make out that she did not know the accused much, prior to the incident and that the accused was friend of her Russian friend Kseneya, and that he did not know the way to her house and therefore told the prosecutrix to sit on the front seat besides him to show the route to her house, however, in the cross-examination it came on record that she knew the accused since 2008 and he was a well known businessman and his business is connected with the boats and that in November 2008 she had come in contact with the accused at a beach shack called the “Lounge” and that thereafter the prosecutrix had sometime met the the accused here and there. The accused even knew that the prosecutrix was having stud on her tongue. According to the prosecutrix herself, the accused at the end drove to her apartment as if knowing where she was staying. (ii) On 02/12/2009, the prosecutrix gave a letter to the police which is at Exhibit 91 which revealed that the accused removed his cloths, lifted the skirt of the prosecutrix and removed her T-shirt and started touching her and she received scratches and black marks on her body as she was trying to protect herself against the accused and thereafter upon the insistence of the prosecutrix, the accused dressed up himself, started the car and dropped the prosecutrix to her house. The above, at the most, amounted to outraging of modesty. The above, at the most, amounted to outraging of modesty. (iii) In the letter Exhibit 89, however the prosecutrix stated that the accused completely undressed himself and then attempted to remove the clothes of the prosecutrix and lifted her skirt, removed her T-Shirt and lowered the underwear of the prosecutrix and then attempted to rape her though she was pleading him not to rape her and he remained on the prosecutrix for about 10 minutes and, therefore, the prosecutrix received scratches and black marks all over her body as she tried to prevent him. This second version, amounted to an attempt to commit rape. (iv) Thereafter, when the case was transferred to CID, the prosecutrix increased the gravity of the offence and stated that she was raped by the accused and described the incident of actual rape by the accused. (v) Thus, the prosecutrix gave three versions one of outraging molesting; second being attempt to rape and third of actual rape. In fact, the first letter dated 02/12/2009 had to be treated as F.I.R. The same was suppressed and not produced by the prosecution. (vi) It came on record in the cross-examination of PW19, the prosecutrix that she had sent SMS to the accused on 01/12/2009 at about 12.00 at night time stating that “If you want to do something just do it. This is for this reason, 2009-2010”. There is admission by the prosecutrix in the cross-examination that instead of the word “season” by mistake she had typed the word “reason”. (vii) In the cross-examination, for very many questions at least 96 in number, PW19, the prosecutrix gave answer “I do not remember”. Some of the said questions were very material which amounted to suppression of material facts. 13. On account of the above facts, which came on record in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and many other which have been discussed by the learned trial court, the testimony of the prosecutrix was not at all reliable and the same smacked of falsehood and did not inspire confidence. 14. Coupled with the above, the fact is that the close friend of the prosecutrix namely Kseneya Kvyhtovskaya (PW21) did not support the case of the prosecution. 15. 14. Coupled with the above, the fact is that the close friend of the prosecutrix namely Kseneya Kvyhtovskaya (PW21) did not support the case of the prosecution. 15. The said Kseneya Kvyhtovskaya (PW-21) deposed that the prosecutrix and the accused used to move out incidentally as friends and within 15 days prior to 01/12/2009, the prosecutrix, the accused and herself had spent time together for lunch as they like to spend time together. She stated that previously also the prosecutrix had sat in the car of the accused as they were roaming together. More particularly, PW 21 stated that the accused dropped the prosecutrix first and then he dropped her. According to her, since she and the prosecutrix were both very much drunk at about 2.00 a.m. and it was too late, they had requested the accused to drop them home. In fact PW21 had earlier filed an affidavit on 04/12/2009 before the police saying as to how the case against the accused was false. 16. The accused was examined by Dr. Andre Fernandes (PW11). If the version of the prosecutrix regarding her struggle with the accused and she having sustained injuries was true, then it was but natural that the accused also should have sustained bruises, scratches or such other injuries. However, the deposition of PW11 and his report reveals that there were no injuries at all present on the body of the accused. The evidence on record reveals that the prosecutrix had grownup nails at the relevant time and nail clippings and hair of scalp of the prosecutrix and as also of the accused were collected by doctors. The scientific report shows that no epithelial cells of the prosecutrix were found on the accused. Therefore, there is doubt whether there was any violence and struggle at the time of the alleged incident. 17. Therefore, it is clear beyond doubt that the prosecution could not at all succeed to prove its case as against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has been rightly acquitted by the Trial Court. Therefore, there is doubt whether there was any violence and struggle at the time of the alleged incident. 17. Therefore, it is clear beyond doubt that the prosecution could not at all succeed to prove its case as against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has been rightly acquitted by the Trial Court. In the case of “S. Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kumar Ganna V/s. State of Karnataka” [ (2013) 7 SCC 219 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated its own observation in the case of “Rahtash V/s. State of Haryana” [ (2012) 6 SCC 589 ] which is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. It is further observed that the appellate Court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and therefore the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. In the present case, there are absolutely no reasons warranting interference with the impugned judgment. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.