JUDGMENT : This is the appeal preferred by the State, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.07.2012 passed in S.C.No.15/2012 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, wherein the respondent/accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 06.09.2011 at about 9.00 am, when Kum. Roja who was under the age of 18 years was alone in her house at Jajur village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, at that time, accused entered into the house, closed her mouth tightly with his hands, forcibly committed rape on her. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1/complainant who is the father of the prosecutrix, case came to be registered in Crime No.94/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, against the respondent/accused herein. 3. After completing investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. Accordingly, matter was set down for trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined in all, 17 witnesses and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.11 and also got marked the material objects, M.Os. 1 to 9. Then the respondent/accused herein was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and his statement came to be recorded. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined, but two documents were got marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2. 6. After hearing arguments of both sides and after considering the materials placed, both oral and documentary, the learned Sessions Judge held that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, acquitted the respondent/accused herein from the said charge. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal and also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum at ground Nos.1 to 7, appellant/State is before this Court, in this appeal. 8. We heard the arguments of learned Addl. SPP. The victim girl is examined as P.W.7 in this case. 8. We heard the arguments of learned Addl. SPP. The victim girl is examined as P.W.7 in this case. It is his contention that the victim girl was a minor as on the date of alleged incident i.e., 06.09.2011 and she was alone in the house at about 9.00 am. Her mother had been to attend coolie work and father P.W.1 went out of the house to go to bus stand as he wanted to meet somebody. At that time, the respondent/accused entered into the house and committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim girl. In this connection, complaint came to be registered under Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W.1 who is father of the victim girl. 9. The Addl. SPP made submission that the Trial Court disbelieved the case of the prosecution mainly on the ground that there is delay in lodging the complaint and delay is not properly explained by prosecution. In this connection, he made submission that when the father came back to the house, the victim girl was weeping. Immediately she told before her father that the accused came inside the house and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. The mother returned to the house in the evening and there afterwards, they informed their relatives, C.Ws.10 and 11 and lodged the complaint. Hence, it is his contention that delay in lodging the complaint has been explained by witnesses who are examined before the Court. Inspite of that, the learned Sessions Judge opined that delay has not been properly explained. It is also his submission that looking to the oral evidence of P.W.7/victim girl, she clearly stated in her evidence about accused entering the house when she was alone in house and inspite of her protest, he made her to lie on the floor and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Hence he made submission that the victim girl deposed about the forcible sexual intercourse on her by accused person. Even during the course of cross examination of P.W.7, nothing has been elicited so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Regarding the medical evidence is concerned, he made submission that the victim girl was not examined immediately after the incident. She was examined on 10.09.2011 after gap of 3-4 days from the date of incident. Therefore, there may not be any possibility of finding out any injuries. Regarding the medical evidence is concerned, he made submission that the victim girl was not examined immediately after the incident. She was examined on 10.09.2011 after gap of 3-4 days from the date of incident. Therefore, there may not be any possibility of finding out any injuries. That may not be the ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. He also made submission that P.W.1/father of the victim girl who lodged the complaint and who has been examined as P.W.1 also clearly deposed in his evidence that when he came back to the house at about 9.15 to 9.30 am, the door was closed and when he pushed the door and went inside the house, he saw respondent/accused herein running out from the house. Hence, on these grounds also, learned Addl. SPP made submission that looking to the evidence of the victim girl as well as P.W.1, there is material placed by prosecution that the accused person entered into the house of the complainant on that day at the relevant time. He also made submission that though P.W.7 was little reluctant in giving evidence before the Court, but subsequently, when she has been explained by the Court that she has to tell truth before Court, she has explained what has happened on that day. Hence, he submitted that her reluctance in giving evidence in the Court at the initial stage will not come in the way as she has already deposed in evidence in its entirety. He drew our attention to the evidence in paper book i.e., evidence of prosecution witness, so also documents produced in the case and he made submission that these important aspects of the case were not at all properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. It is also his submission that during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witness, defence was not able to make out a case that the respondent/ accused has been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, he made the submission that the entire reading of the material by learned Sessions Judge is not in the proper perspective. The entire material was wrongly read by the Trial Court and proceeded to acquit the respondent/accused from the charge. Hence, he submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below is not in accordance with the material placed by prosecution. The entire material was wrongly read by the Trial Court and proceeded to acquit the respondent/accused from the charge. Hence, he submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below is not in accordance with the material placed by prosecution. He submitted that looking to the prosecution material both oral and documentary, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that there was forcible sexual intercourse on the victim girl. Therefore, he sought to set-aside the judgment and order of the Court below and convict the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and to impose the punishment on him. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused made the submission that looking to the prosecution material, the delay is not explained properly. Even looking to the evidence of the victim girl and her father P.W.1, it will not inspire confidence that such an incident has really taken place. He submitted that the prosecution witness, i.e., P.W.9 himself admitted during the course of cross- examination that the relationship between himself and the family members of the victim girl was not in talking terms. He also made the submission that even P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that relationship between two families was not cordial. Hence he made submission that because of such a strained relationship between two families, false complaint has been filed against the respondent/accused falsely implicating him in the case and at the behest of P.Ws.9 and 10. Hence, learned counsel submitted that these aspects were extensively considered by the learned Sessions Judge and no illegality is committed. Hence, he submitted to dismiss the appeal. 12. We have perused the grounds in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below, oral evidence of prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 17, documents Exs.P.1 to 11, so also documents Exs.D1 and D2 on the side of the defence. 13. Perusing the prosecution material, i.e., the contents of the complaint, it goes to show that the incident said to have been taken place on 06.09.2011, Tuesday in the morning when Rathnamma, wife of P.W.1 had been to attend the coolie work and the complainant/P.W.1 and his daughter Kum. 13. Perusing the prosecution material, i.e., the contents of the complaint, it goes to show that the incident said to have been taken place on 06.09.2011, Tuesday in the morning when Rathnamma, wife of P.W.1 had been to attend the coolie work and the complainant/P.W.1 and his daughter Kum. Roja/victim girl were in the house and at about 9.00 am, as he was having some work in the bus stand, P.W.1 left the house and at that time, daughter of the complainant was sweeping. After some time, P.W.1 came back to the house. The door of the house was closed. He pushed the door and went inside the house and a boy of the neighbouring house went out of the house. His daughter was weeping. When he enquired with his daughter, she told that the respondent/accused- Vasanth Kumar came inside the house, closed the door, threatened her not to shout and closed her moth tightly, made her to lie on the ground, then committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. He did not leave her inspite of her struggle to get herself relieved. He further deposed that in the evening, his wife came from attending work and he informed her about the incident, he also informed his relatives and discussed about the same and as injustice was caused to his daughter, he filed complaint on 09.09.2011. Kalyan Kumar, S/o Siddalingappa wrote the contents of the complaint as narrated by him. They have kept the nighty and petticoat in the house separately and requested the police to take proper action against the accused person. 14. Looking to his examination-in-chief, P.W.1 has reiterated what he has stated in the complaint. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted as true that C.W.10 is a retired teacher, C.Ws.10 and 11 are his own brothers, C.W.6 is the son of C.W.10. He also admitted as true that his father and father of C.W.10 being brothers, they are close relatives. He further deposed that there are Kariyamma and Durgamma temples in their village and people of neighbouring 6-7 villages come to the temple to offer prayers. One Rudraiah was managing the affairs of the said temples and since 2-3 years, C.W.10 Siddalingaiah was the treasurer of the said temples. He admitted that accused and his family members were also going to the said temples and offering the prayers. One Rudraiah was managing the affairs of the said temples and since 2-3 years, C.W.10 Siddalingaiah was the treasurer of the said temples. He admitted that accused and his family members were also going to the said temples and offering the prayers. When it was suggested to this witness C.W.1 that the people of the village and the father of the accused asked the accounts of the said temples, there was strained relationship between the people of the village of the accused and the said C.W.10 Siddalingaiah. But the witness shown ignorance about the same. It was again suggested that about 3-4 months back, the waste water of the house of Thimmaiah was coming out. C.W.10 and the father of the accused quarrelled with each other in that connection. The witness shown ignorance. But further he admitted in the next suggestion that for that reason, the father of the accused and C.Ws.10 and 11 were not on the talking terms. He further admitted as true that C.W.10 was the Post Master and has misappropriated the amount and for that reason he was removed from the job. 15. Looking to the cross-examination of P.W.1 so also the cross-examination of P.W.10, Kalyan Kumar who is the scribe of the complaint, it has come on record that there was strained relationship between family of the accused and family of the complainant, C.Ws.10 and 11 who are the relatives of P.W.1. Regarding the evidence of P.W.1 that he has seen accused person running out from the house of P.W.1 is concerned, the evidence of the victim P.W.7 is relevant. We perused the evidence of the victim girl. The cross-examination portion of P.W.1 makes it clear that he is having poor vision and because of that reason, he is getting disability allowance from the Government which he has admitted and looking to the evidence of P.W.7 also who is victim girl, daughter of the complainant, she deposed that her father is not having a clear eye sight and since 20 years, he is getting disability allowance from the Government. She further admitted the suggestion as true that as her father is having 90% vision disability he is not having a clear vision. She further admitted the suggestion as true that as her father is having 90% vision disability he is not having a clear vision. When this is the evidence during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1/complainant and P.W.7/the victim girl, about the vision of P.W.1 it is difficult for the Court to accept the contention of the complainant/P.W.1 that he has seen the accused running out from the house of P.W.1. 16. Coming to the evidence of P.W.7 regarding the incident is concerned, she deposed in her examination-in-chief that about six months back, morning at about 9.00 am, she alone was in the house, her mother went to attend coolie work, her father went to the bus stand. When she alone was in the house, accused person came inside the house and closed the door and he also closed her mouth, gagged her mouth with cloth. Here the demeanour of witness is observed by the learned Sessions Judge. While recording evidence, when the matter was for further examination-in-chief, though the public prosecutor repeatedly asked the witness-P.W.7 to tell as to what has happened between herself and the accused, for a period of 10 minutes, she did not answer, kept mum and the Court has granted further 5 minutes time to her. It is also observed by the Court that inspite of giving time of 20 minutes from 12.00 to 12.20 noon and even though she was asked to give evidence, without speaking she stood in the witness box. Then the matter was adjourned at the request of public prosecutor for further examination-in-chief. On the next date i.e., on 19.06.2012, the witness P.W.7 deposed before the Court that morning at 9.00 am, the accused forcibly made her to lie on the ground, the accused removed her clothes, he removed his clothes also and then he committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. He did not leave her inspite of her struggle to get relieved from his clutches. Then her father came to the house. She informed the same to her father and evening her mother came to the house. She informed even to her mother also and then they informed the relatives and there afterwards, they lodged the complaint. Then police sent her to hospital for medical examination at Challakere Government hospital. The doctor took her clothes. They are M.Os.1 and 2, the petticoat and nighty. She informed even to her mother also and then they informed the relatives and there afterwards, they lodged the complaint. Then police sent her to hospital for medical examination at Challakere Government hospital. The doctor took her clothes. They are M.Os.1 and 2, the petticoat and nighty. In the cross-examination by the defence, whenever she came to the Court for giving evidence, the police people asked her to give her evidence as per the documents they were having with them. She further admitted in the next sentence that as per the say of the police and as her father and mother, Durgamma and Kalyan Kumar who told her to give evidence in a particular manner, she is giving evidence in that manner. She also admitted the suggestion as true that on 04.06.2012 and 13.06.2012 when she was in the witness box the public prosecutor asked her to give true version of the case. She admitted that inspite of the public prosecutor asking her to give evidence as to what has happened, for two dates she has not deposed before the Court. She denied the suggestion that on the two dates i.e., 04.06.2012 and 13.06.2012 she has not given her evidence because no such incident has taken place and she has also denied the suggestion that she gave evidence as per the say of her parents, Durgamma and Kalyan Kumar. Her evidence goes to show that police requested them to produce clothes. Accordingly, they produced M.Os.1 and 2/clothes. If this is taken into consideration, without there being any seizure mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses, the clothes M.O.1 and 2 were given to the police. She denied the suggestion that she is giving false evidence that the accused person made her to lie on the ground, forcibly even though she struggled, he did not leave her, committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. She deposed that she has not told before anybody about the accused running out from her house. She deposed that before this sexual intercourse she has not screamed, after the intercourse, though she screamed people opposite to their house and people who are moving on the road did not come to her house. Even after sexual intercourse on her, there was no injury to her private part, so also there was no bleeding. She deposed that before this sexual intercourse she has not screamed, after the intercourse, though she screamed people opposite to their house and people who are moving on the road did not come to her house. Even after sexual intercourse on her, there was no injury to her private part, so also there was no bleeding. The floor of the house was cleaned with the cow dung and it was a hard surface. When the accused person forcibly made her to lie on the ground, there were no injuries on her back, shoulders and on the heels, knee portion. There was no cloth on the floor of the house. 17. We have also perused the evidence of the doctor/P.W.5/P. Sharadamma, who examined the victim girl. She deposed in her evidence in examination-in-chief that on 09.09.2011 at 7.00 pm, Parashurampura police brought one girl by name Kum. Roja with women police 1317 for the purpose of examination. She examined the girl. She has not noticed any injuries on her body and she collected five articles and they were sent to FSL for examination and even as per FSL report, semen stains were not found on any of the articles. Accordingly, she issued the injury certificate, stated that no sexual intercourse took place. The said document is Ex.P.4 and her signature is Ex.P.4A. She has also deposed as to what are the five articles that were sent to FSL. In the cross-examination, she deposed that there was a requisition by the police to examine the victim girl. Before examining the victim girl, she has not obtained her consent. But she obtained the consent of her mother. She denied the suggestion that she has not examined the victim girl, but at the instance of police, she has issued Ex.P.4 and also denied the suggestion that M.Os.3 to 7 are not at all belonging to the victim girl. Looking to the evidence of the doctor, she has not noticed any injuries on the person of the victim girl. As per evidence of the victim girl herself that even after forcible sexual intercourse on her, there are no injuries to her private part and there was no bleeding also. 18. The doctor who examined the accused person is P.W.13/Dr. Ramesh. Looking to his deposition, he has not noticed any injuries on the person of the accused. As per evidence of the victim girl herself that even after forcible sexual intercourse on her, there are no injuries to her private part and there was no bleeding also. 18. The doctor who examined the accused person is P.W.13/Dr. Ramesh. Looking to his deposition, he has not noticed any injuries on the person of the accused. In the cross-examination, he has admitted as true that any person if commits forcible sexual intercourse, there will be injuries on the private part of the said person. 19. Therefore, if these aspects are taken into consideration it is clear that there were no injuries either on the victim girl or on the accused person on the body and even to the private parts of both. It is admitted by P.W.1 that the relationship between his family and family of the accused was strained. They were not on talking terms and regarding delay, though the incident alleged to have taken place on 06.09.2011 and it was brought to the notice of P.W.1 at the very next moment, so also to the notice of her mother after she returned from coolie work in the evening, discussing the matter with the relatives, even then complaint was not lodged either on the evening of 06.09.2011 or atleast on the next day morning. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is right in observing that the delay is not properly explained. 20. Looking to the material placed on record, it goes to show that because of the strained relationship between the two families, the possibility of implication of the accused person in the said case cannot be completely ruled out. We do not find any illegality in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, even after re-appreciating the entire material both oral and documentary. Therefore, there are no valid and justifiable grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below. No merit in the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed.