JUDGMENT : B.S. Patil, J. 1. State of Karnataka represented by Kumarapattnam Police have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2013 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur in S.C.No.47/2012. 2. Facts involved in the case are that on 20.02.2012, Kavya D/o Devendrappa Sarathi, aged about 15 years filed a complaint before Kumarapattanam police alleging that about 10 to 12 days ago i.e., on 08/02/2012, on a Wdenesday at about 3 p.m., she accompanied one Basappa Hariyappa Horakeri, the accused of Karur Village on a moped: that she was made to sit as a pillion rider and was taken to his land. On the way, she was asked to fetch some eatables from a restaurant. Thereafter, he took her to a hut in his land and raped her. 3. It is further alleged in the complaint that he had tied her both hands and had warned her against making any noise. She was also threatened not to disclose about the incident to anybody, as otherwise she would be done to death: one Nagappa Banakar S/o Shankarappa Banakar had come there; as the said Nagappa Banakar had called out the accused by his name, the accused went out of the hut and entered the betel nut garden whereas, the complainant/victim sat there crying. When the said Nagappa Banakar departed from the place, the accused asked the complainant to accompany him in his moped (two wheeler) and on the way, she was again threatened not to disclose about the incident before anybody, as otherwise, it would spoil her reputation and also the reputation of her entire family. It is also alleged by her in the complaint that the incident came to light from Nagappa Banakar: when the complainant’s brother Hanumanthappa Sarathi enquired about the incident, she had to admit the same: her brother informed her about arranging a panchayath. As a result, she consumed poison and was admitted to Harihar hospital on 20.02.2012 and thereafter, she was shitfted to Chigateri General Hospital, Davanagere. 4. The complaint was recorded by PW-14/Police Sub Inspector in Chigateri General Hospital, Davanagere where the complainant was allegedly taking treatment for having consumed poison. The Police Sub-Inspector registered the case in Crime No.15/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as per Ex.P1. 5. The accused was arrested on 21-02-2012. 4. The complaint was recorded by PW-14/Police Sub Inspector in Chigateri General Hospital, Davanagere where the complainant was allegedly taking treatment for having consumed poison. The Police Sub-Inspector registered the case in Crime No.15/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as per Ex.P1. 5. The accused was arrested on 21-02-2012. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet. As the accused pleaded not guilty, the charge was framed. The prosecution examined in all 17 witnesses as PWs-1 to 17 and produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P.17. No evidence was let in by the defence. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge having examined the entire material on record, framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 08-02-2012 at about 4.00 P.m. the accused had taken the complainant victim in his TVS XL Heavy Duty Moped bearing No.KA-27/S-3241 to Karuru village of Ranebennur taluk and he took her to a hut which is situated in the garden of betel leaves and committed rape on her and gave life threat to her and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 IPC? 2. If so, what order or sentence? On consideration of the materials on record, particularly the fact that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and that there were serious discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant who was examined as PW-1 and further that medical evidence produced in the form of evidence of PW-13 and the medical report furnished by PW-13 marked as EX.P.13, made it very clear that there was no sign of any sexual intercourse or any injuries on the private part of the victim, the Court has held that there was serious doubt with regard to the story put forward by the prosecution. The trial Court has also taken not of the fact that PW-4 Nagappa Banakar did not support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the trial Court on appreciation of the material evidence on record, has acquitted the accused of the offences charged against him. Hence, the State is in appeal before this Court. 6. The trial Court has also taken not of the fact that PW-4 Nagappa Banakar did not support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the trial Court on appreciation of the material evidence on record, has acquitted the accused of the offences charged against him. Hence, the State is in appeal before this Court. 6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State strongly contends that the Court below seriously erred in disbelieving the version of PW-1, the victim, particularly because she was aged about 15 years and had clearly narrated the details of the events that took place. It is his contention that, even if, it was the solitary evidence of the victim and though, there was delay in lodging the complaint, that could not have come in the way of the Court below in accepting her evidence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the defence/respondent has strongly supported the findings recorded by the trial Court. 8. Both the learned counsel have taken us through the evidence on record both oral and documentary. 9. In the light of the various contentions raised and the findings recorded, the points that arise for our consideration are: 1. Whether the judgment of acquittal and the findings recorded by the Court below suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court? 2. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that on 08-02-2012, the accused committed rape on the victim/complainant as narrated and alleged in the complaint? 3. What order? 10. As both points 1 and 2 are interconnected, they are taken up together for consideration. On careful scrutiny of entire materials available on record, it emerges from the evidence of PW-1/victim that on the date of the incident accused who was known to the family of the complainant had come to the house of the complainant and had lunch in her house in the presence of her parents and after talking to her parents, the complainant was taken by the accused to Karur village and from there to his garden land where he committed rape on her. In her cross-examination, the victim admitted that she had been to Karur village to bring the stitched clothes and on that day, she stayed in the house of her relative Smt. Premakka Yeligar and on the following morning, she returned back to her house. In her cross-examination, the victim admitted that she had been to Karur village to bring the stitched clothes and on that day, she stayed in the house of her relative Smt. Premakka Yeligar and on the following morning, she returned back to her house. Whereas, in the complaint, she has specifically stated that she was taken by the accused to his garden land and committed rape on her in the hut in the garden land belonging to the accused and thereafter they came back to the victims house. This version of PW-1 in the cross-examination belies the assertion made by her in the complaint that she was taken by the accused on his moped to his garden land on the date of incident because in the cross-examination, she states that she had been to Karur village for bringing stitched clothes and from Karur village she went to her relative Premakka Yaligar’s house and stayed there over night and on the following morning, she returned back to her house. 11. In addition, evidence of PW-4 Nagappa Banakar and PW-7 Mahesh Ajjinavar who have allegedly seen the victim in the garden land of the accused did not support the case of prosecution. 12. PW-8/Shivayogi Guttalamani who is the owner of the petty shop form where some eatables were allegedly fetched by the victim as instructed by the accused on the date of incident at Karur has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 13. More important is the evidence of the doctor PW-13/Dr. Vishwanath H.D. who has examined the victim. He has opined that there were no marks on her private parts and there were no indications of any recent sexual intercourse. He has categorically pointed put in his report Ex.P.13 that there was no sexual intercourse in the recent past. Therefore, Ex.P.13 report of the doctor and evidence of the PW-13/Dr. Vishwanath H.D. falsifies the case of the prosecution. The Court below has rightly taken note of this evidence of the doctor to come to the conclusion that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused as alleged. 14. One another important aspect that we have to notice here is that while PW-5 father of the victim states that at the time when the victim was taken from his house by the accused on his moped, he along with his wife were present at the house. 14. One another important aspect that we have to notice here is that while PW-5 father of the victim states that at the time when the victim was taken from his house by the accused on his moped, he along with his wife were present at the house. Whereas, mother of the victim PW-6/Smt.Girijamma does not support this version of PW-5. Indeed, she has stated in her evidence that at that time, herself and her husband were not present at home. 15. Similarly, PW-9/Hanumanthappa brother of the victim has not stated anything with regard to his presence or the presence of his parents in the house at the time when the victim accompanied the accused on his moped. All these factors and material inconsistencies in the version of the complainant/PW-1 have been rightly taken note of by the Court below in holding that prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused. 16. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons assigned and the conclusion reached by the Court below. The conclusion reached by the Court below logically follows from the reasons assigned. Hence, as we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.