JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court- I, Raichur, in S.C.No.17/2011. 2. The brief case as per the prosecution is that, accused used to visit the house of the complainant. In the absence of the complainant and his wife, he used to meet the daughter of the complainant, who is aged about 17 years and used to tell her that he is in love with her and would marry her. By impressing upon her by saying so, he used to tell her that they would go to Bengaluru and settle there itself in order to lead a marital life. It is further alleged that, by luring her by his pleasing words, accused on 11.8.2008 at about 4:00 p.m., kidnapped the victim against her will from house and took her to Hadagibal Camp to the house of one Channappa and they stayed there from 11.8.2010 to 13.8.2010 and during night hours he used to have intercourse with her against her will by falsely impressing upon her that, he is going to marry her. Thereafter he took her to the house of Mareppa at Bagalkot, wherein they stayed from 15.8.2010 to 17.8.2010, during that time also, accused used to have forcible intercourse with her. It is further alleged that at the time of alleged incident, the victim was minor. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of the victim, a case was registered in Crime No.153/2010. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all eighteen witnesses as PWs.1 to 18 and got marked as many as twenty two documents as per Exs.P1 to P.22. After closure of the evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting incriminating materials against the accused. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned order came to be passed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused and the learned HCGP appearing for the State. 5. After closure of the evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting incriminating materials against the accused. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned order came to be passed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused and the learned HCGP appearing for the State. 5. The main grounds urged by the appellant’s counsel are that, though the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and has clearly deposed before the Court that nobody has kidnapped her and nobody has sexually assaulted her, even in the absence of the medical evidence without proper appreciation of the evidence and material on record only on assumption and presumption on the basis of the evidence of official witnesses the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused, the same is not sustainable in law. Though, other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, their evidence is not going to help the case of the prosecution to prove its case as alleged. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant-accused. On these grounds, he prayed for acquittal of the appellant-accused by allowing the present appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP by supporting the impugned judgment, has vehemently argued and contended that though the complainant has turned hostile, other witnesses who have been examined before the Court have categorically stated that the accused kidnapped the minor girl and has sexually assaulted her, as such, the trial Court after considering the said evidence has rightly convicted the appellant-accused. He further contends that the appellant-accused has not made out good grounds so as to acquit him. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal by confirming judgment of the trial court. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the respondent-State, let me consider whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Since this Court is the first appellate Court, it has to reassess the facts and evidence on record and as such the reference to the evidence is very much essential. 8. As aforesaid, the prosecution has got examined eighteen witnesses. PW.1 is the victim, who in her chief-examination deposed that, she was not acquainted with the accused and she does not know anything about the case and police did not enquire with her. 8. As aforesaid, the prosecution has got examined eighteen witnesses. PW.1 is the victim, who in her chief-examination deposed that, she was not acquainted with the accused and she does not know anything about the case and police did not enquire with her. She further deposed that, she has not gone anywhere along with the appellant. Thus, this witness has been treated as hostile. Even during the course of cross-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 is the father of the victim, who in his evidence deposed that, the victim is the third daughter. He further deposed that one day after completion of his coolie work, himself and his wife came to their house at about 6:00 p.m., his another daughter by name Sangeeta informed that, the victim has gone out to Raichur by taking the Transfer Certificate, Marks Card and three pairs of dress. He further deposed that, in the meanwhile, C.W.12- Substain came to their house and informed that, he saw victim and accused together were going to Raichur in a Bus. He has further deposed that 4-5 days they searched and they could not trace the victim, which led in filing the complaint. He has further deposed that four days thereafter police called him and told him that, his daughter has been traced. He further deposed that, himself and his wife went to Bangalore Police Station, from there, to Sindhanoor Police Station, wherein his daughter-victim told that, appellant-accused took her to Hedaginabala Camp, wherein they stayed in the house of one Channappa for two days and they have gone to Badami, from there to Bagalkot, from there to Mudaladinni. This witness has also been treated hostile and during his cross-examination, he admitted that his daughter-victim told that, accused had forcible intercourse with her at different places. During the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited. 9. P.W.3 is the spot mahazar pancha to Ex.P-5. P.W.4 is the mother of the victim. She has also reiterated the evidence of P.W.2, her husband. P.W.5 is the friend who allowed the appellant and victim to stay in his brother’s house at Bengaluru. P.W.6 is a witness in whose house the appellant and victim stayed. P.W.7 is also a witness where the appellant and victim stayed. P.W.4 is the mother of the victim. She has also reiterated the evidence of P.W.2, her husband. P.W.5 is the friend who allowed the appellant and victim to stay in his brother’s house at Bengaluru. P.W.6 is a witness in whose house the appellant and victim stayed. P.W.7 is also a witness where the appellant and victim stayed. These witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. P.W.8 is the witness, who deposed that, about 9-10 months ago, he saw victim and appellant together in bus stand and were boarding the bus at Raichur at about 4:00 p.m., thereafter at about 6:00 p.m. he went to the house of complainant and enquired and informed the said fact to the complainant. During the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited. 10. P.W.9 is the Headmaster, who issued the date of birth certificate of the victim as per Ex.P-10. P.W.10 is a Government Official who has issued the residential certificate as per Ex.P-11 to show that, Mariyappa who was working in their department as a Peon has been allotted official quarters at Navanagara, Bagalkot. 11. P.W.11 is the Doctor who examined the victim after the incident has deposed that, before examination, on enqiry, victim gave the history that willingly she went to Bangalore along with her boyfriend and they stayed together for one week and had intercourse with him and parents gave police complaint. He further deposed that, he did not find any external injuries as she was in periods on the day of her medication examination. Exs.P-12 and 13 were got marked through him. 12. P.W.12 is another doctor, who examined the appellant-accused. He has deposed that he examined the accused and has issued Examination Certificate as per Ex.P-14 and opinion as per Ex.P-15. 13. P.W.13 is the Asst. Engineer, who prepared the sketch as per Ex.P-16. P.W.14 is the sister of the victim, who in her evidence deposed that, she knows the accused and about one year back, when she returned home from the school and at that time she saw his sister-victim along with pairs of her dress, T.C., Marks Card and she made enqiry with her as to where she is intending to go, for which, the victim told that she wants to go to Raichur for taking admission for Nursing course. Thereafter, she informed the same to her parents. Thereafter, she informed the same to her parents. 14. P.W.15 is the P.S.I., who registered the case and partly investigated the case. P.Ws.16 and 17 are the spot mahazar panchas conducted in the house of one Chinnappa as per Ex.P-19. P.W.18 is the C.P.I., who took further investigation and laid the charge sheet against the appellant-accused. 15. Though the prosecution has got examined eighteen witnesses, the star witness vicrtim-P.W.1 in this case has not supported the case of prosecution and she has been as treated hostile and even during the course of cross-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Her evidence is not going to help the prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of the accused. 16. The parents of victim who have been examined as Ps.W.2 and 4, in their evidence they have stated that, their daughter Sangeeta, P.W.14 told that the victim has gone out to Raichur by taking Transfer Certificate, Marks Card and three pair of dress and P.W.8-Substain told them that he saw the appellant-accused and victim boarding the bus to go towards Raichur. Though, these witnesses have also stated that the police brought the victim and the appellant and at that time the victim told that they had gone to Badami, Bagalkot and Mudaladinni, P.W.2 has not stated what actually the victim told about the alleged crime, no where he has deposed that the accused kidnapped the victim from their lawful custody against the will of the victim. Though, during the course of cross-examination P.W.2 has admitted that, victim told that the appellant had forceful intercourse with her at different places, but where exactly the alleged sexual assault has been made by the appellant is not specifically forthcoming. P.W.4, the mother of the victim also stated that the victim told her that the appellant had intercourse with her at different places against her will. Though, these two witnesses have stated the fact, the said evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of the victim-P.W.1. 17. The prosecution also got examined P.W.11, the doctor who examined the victim, he has also deposed that the victim, before examination on enquiry gave the history that willingly she went to Bangalore along with her boyfriend and stayed together for one week and had intercourse with him. 17. The prosecution also got examined P.W.11, the doctor who examined the victim, he has also deposed that the victim, before examination on enquiry gave the history that willingly she went to Bangalore along with her boyfriend and stayed together for one week and had intercourse with him. From the above said evidence, it clearly indicates that the victim who is aged about 17 years was having knowledge about the worldly affairs and she was knowing the consequences, under such circumstances, the question of appellant kidnapping the victim against her will does not arise at all. When P.W.8 before whom she has stated that she has voluntarily gone along with her boyfriend willingly, under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 366 of Indian Penal Code will not attract, consequently when the evidence of P.W.1, the victim herself says that, she has not gone anywhere and she has deposed before P.W.11 that she had gone along with her boyfriend and at that time she had intercourse with him. Under such circumstances, it will not amount to rape as contemplated under Section 375 of Indian Penal Code. Even P.W.11, the doctor who examined the victim has clearly deposed that she did not find any external injuries on the victim. If really, the appellant-accused has taken her against her will and had forcible intercourse, then under such circumstances, some injuries on her private part would have appeared. Be that as it may, the places where, they were alleged to have gone and stayed and at that time the accused had forcible intercourse with the victim, those witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and it is not having any corroboration. In that light, the evidence of P.W.14 if it is perused closely, she has deposed that the victim, his elder sister told her that she is intending to go to Raichur for taking admission for Nursing Course, under the said circumstances, the provisions of Section 366-A will not attract so as to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution including the complainant, under such circumstances, the other evidence will not help the case of the prosecution to make any further progress. When the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution including the complainant, under such circumstances, the other evidence will not help the case of the prosecution to make any further progress. In this light, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of said witnesses and has committed a glaring illegality in appreciation of the evidence. As could be seen from the impugned judgment, though there is no cogent, concrete and reliable evidence the trial Court has wrongly held that the evidence is sufficient to constitute the alleged offence as against the appellant-accused and has come to a wrong conclusion. 18. On going through the evidence which has been produced before the trial Court, it reveals that the said evidence is not trustworthy, reliable and there are so many inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution and the said inconsistencies create a doubt about the alleged offences as contended by the prosecution. When the evidence of the prosecution creates a doubt, then the said benefit should go to the accused. In that light, the appellant-accused is entitled for acquittal. In the background of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge without proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has come to a wrong conclusion which appears to be not sustainable in law and therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following:- The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and P.O. Fast Track Court-I Raichur in SC.No.17/2011 is set aside. The appellant-accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections, 366-A and 376 of IPC. The appellant-accused is set at liberty if he is in custody and if he is not required in any other case. The bail bonds executed by the appellant-accused and the sureties stand cancelled. The fine amount deposited if any, shall be refunded to the accused on proper identification and acknowledgement.