JUDGMENT : Z.A. HAQ, J. Heard Shri M.J. Khan, A.P.P. for the appellant and Shri J.A. Anthony, advocate for the respondent No. 2. None for the respondent No. 1. 2. The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (as it stood at the time of incident) and recording conviction only for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, Lalita (prosecutrix) R/o Potewalli, Post Chapalwada, Tah. Chamorshi had gone to Darpanguda village to attend the marriage and she started for her village, the next morning at about 6 a.m. when the respondents caught hold of her and outraged her modesty. According to the prosecution, on returning to Darpanguda she informed about the incident and Panchayat was held in which she requested that the accused be punished as per law. Accordingly, report was submitted to the police station Chamorshi on which the investigation was undertaken and after completing the necessary formalities, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. After conducting the trial, the learned Sessions Judge recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 376 2(g) of the Indian Penal Code (as it stood at the time of incident). However, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has established that the accused No. 1 committed offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 month. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused No. 2 is also liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused No. 2 is also liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (as it stood at the time of incident), has filed this appeal. 3. Shri M.J. Khan, learned A.P.P. has exhaustively referred to the evidence on the record and has submitted that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (as it stood at the time of incident) and the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (as it stood at the time of incident). 4. I have examined the evidence on the record, with the assistance of the learned A.P.P. and the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. The most relevant witness is Shri Indrajit Nagdevte (P.W.9) - Medical Officer. After assessing the evidence of other witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of Indrajit Nagdevte (P.W.9). The relevant consideration is in paragraph No. 7 of the judgment, as follows: "7..... Therefore, I feel that the material witness in this case is the Medical Officer who had examined the prosecutrix soon after happening of the incident. P.W.9 Indrajit Nagdevate Ex.49 the Medical Officer has examined the prosecutrix on 5/5/99 i.e. on the day of the incident at about 12.45 p.m. and then he noticed that the prosecutrix is able to perform sexual intercourse. Her secondary organs were well developed. She was used to perform sexual intercourse. Penetration of the penis in vagina was not done. There was absence of semen in the vagina. There was staining of semen on sari. There was abrasion on the lower back on both sides. On the same day, accused Pandurang was also referred for his medical examination. He was also able to perform sexual intercourse and his secondary organs were well developed. There was evidence of intercourse. Smegma was absent on corona glands. There was staining of semen on sari. There was abrasion on the lower back on both sides. On the same day, accused Pandurang was also referred for his medical examination. He was also able to perform sexual intercourse and his secondary organs were well developed. There was evidence of intercourse. Smegma was absent on corona glands. There was evidence of fall of semen. There was evidence of sexual intercourse but unable to say as to at what time, intercourse had happened. There were no stains of semen on clothes. There was abrasion on right knee below patela. There was abrasion of the shaft of penis. He has issued certificates Ex.50 and 13 respectively. Medical Officer has not given age of abrasion noticed on the back of prosecutrix. At the same time, he has expressed probability that abrasion on the back of the prosecutrix could be caused due to fall. As per the Medical Officer, no semen was found in the vagina and, therefore, he has opined that penetration of penis in vagina was not done. There was staining of semen on the Sari but the same was not noticed in the vagina and, therefore, finding was given by Medical Officer. C.A. Report Ex.9-A and 9-B supports his finding." After assessing the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has examined the legal aspects and after referring to the judgment cited before him, has rightly concluded that the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the penetration in the vaginal part and the absence of semen in the vagina as shown in the medical evidence shows that the offence of rape punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (as it stood at the time of incident), was not made out. The learned A.P.P. has not been able to show that the conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge which are based on the medical evidence suffer from any perversity. The learned A.P.P. has not been able to show that any relevant evidence on the record has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of accused stand cancelled. No orders as to costs.