JUDGMENT Joshi, J.--1. By this appeal filed under section 378 of the CrPC, appellant/State of MP has assailed the acquittal of present respondent Rajesh recorded by Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Vidisha vide judgment dated 4.6.2010 passed in S.T. No.57/2008 from the charge of sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) of the IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Admittedly, prosecutrix (PW2) and respondent are resident of same village and respondent does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, whereas prosecutrix (PW2) belongs to Khangar caste, which falls under the list of scheduled caste. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 7.2.2008, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Naulash lodged missing person report at Police Station, Gyaraspur to the effect that his niece prosecutrix (PW2) on 5.2.2008 in the mid night at 2-30 a.m. went outside of the house after opening the doors, then they understood that prosecutrix had gone for answering the call of nature and prosecutrix did not return the house. Thereafter she was searched in nearby villages and Vidisha. During search, Randeer Thakur, resident of Mohangiri, Vidisha intimated to him that prosecutrix had gone to his house and she was dropped at Mandi Gate by him, but after search, nothing could be traced, therefore, missing person report was lodged. During enquiry of missing person report, prosecutrix (PW2) was recovered and her statement was taken, wherein she stated that respondent Rajesh Gurjar has abducted her after enticing her and has committed rape with her. On 8.2.2008 at 15.50 hours, FIR (ExP-2) was recorded by ASI S.J. Qureshi at Police Station and thereafter prosecutrix (PW2) was sent to Community Health Centre, Gyaraspur for medical examination. Dr. Smt. Kanti Madoiya (PW3) on 8.2.2008 medically examined prosecutrix and found no injury over her body and private parts and prosecutrix's worn black colour underwear was sealed and slides of vaginal smear were prepared by lady doctor and the sealed articles were sent to relating Police Station for chemical analysis and lady doctor also advised for radiological examination of prosecutrix regarding her age and recorded her report (ExP-5). 4. Radiological examination of prosecutrix was also conducted at Community Health Centre, Gyaraspur on 8.2.2008 and on the basis of radiological examination, Dr. 4. Radiological examination of prosecutrix was also conducted at Community Health Centre, Gyaraspur on 8.2.2008 and on the basis of radiological examination, Dr. Smt. Kanti Madoiya (PW3) found that prosecutrix's age is about 18 years or her age is above 18 years and recorded her radiological report (ExP-6). The respondent was arrested and Dr. R.S.Sharma (PW1) at District Hospital, Vidisha on 3.3.2008 examined the respondent Rajesh regarding his sexual capability and recorded his report (ExP-1). The sealed material by the lady doctor were sent to Regional FSL, Bhopal with a letter (ExP-7) dated 10.4.2008 of S.P. Vidisha. The report of Regional FSL, Bhopal was received later on. After completing the formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Vidisha, who committed the arisen criminal case to the Court of Special Judge, [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Vidisha. 5. The Special Judge framed charges under sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the IPC and section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against respondent. The respondent abjured his guilt. It was defence of the respondent that he has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity existing between father of the prosecutrix and his father. No defence witness was examined for the respondent. After hearing, trial, Court acquitted the respondent from the framed charges, hence this criminal appeal. 6. Appearing learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of appellant/State vehemently contended that prosecutrix's (PW2) evidence regarding rape was substantially corroborated by FSL report (ExP-9), according to which human sperms and semen were found on underwear of the prosecutrix and on vaginal slides prepared and vaginal swab sealed by lady doctor. It is also prayed that respondent be held guilty for the charged offences and be sentenced properly. 7. It is also prayed that respondent be held guilty for the charged offences and be sentenced properly. 7. Pappu @ Mohar Singh (PW6) deposed that prosecutrix (PW2) is his niece and respondent is also resident of his village and in the winter season when he was sleeping in night in another hut, in next morning it was learnt that his niece is missing, thereafter she was searched and then he lodged missing person report at Police Station Gyaraspur, but after two days he was informed that his niece prosecutrix had reached to house of his younger sister Guddi and then he was telephonically intimated that prosecutrix had been recovered, who had reached to her brother-in-law's (jeeja) house and when proseuctrix met him at Vidisha, then she intimated him that at the time of incident when she came out of her house, then same village's Rajesh Gurjar and his one companion have abducted her after pressing her mouth but except this nothing was told to him by prosecutrix. Pappu @ Mohar Singh (PW6) was declared hostile by the prosecution and the questions of the nature of cross-examination were asked to him by Additional Public Prosecutor, then he admitted the suggestion given by the prosecution that prosecutrix had intimated him that after enticing her about performing marriage respondent Rajesh has abducted her and in a place between villages Sihod and Naulash nearer to a pipal tree, Rajesh forcefully committed rape and thereafter Rajesh left her. 8. 8. Prosecutrix (PW2) deposed that on the date of incident in the night at 2-30 a.m. she was studying at her house and she came out from her house for answering the call of nature and at that time respondent Rajesh was standing in front her house, who caught hold her and pressed her mouth and at that time one boy was driving a motorcycle and respondent compelled her to sit on that motorcycle and behind her respondent Rajesh got seated and thereafter she was taken to nearer a pipal tree in the way to village Sihod and there motorcycle was stopped and she was got down from the motorcycle and Rajesh also came down from the motorcycle and driver of the motorcycle took away the motorcycle, thereafter Rajesh asked her for solemnÁing marriage with him and when she denied then Rajesh slapped her and thereafter Rajesh took out her salwar and took out his pant and Rajesh committed rape with her thrice in a period of about one hour and thereafter the boy driving the motorcycle came again there and by that motorcycle respondent took her to village Sihod where one bus was standing, then respondent and his companion dropped her in the bus, then she intimated the whole incident to bus driver and bus driver assured her that in next morning he would leave her at Vidisha and next morning she reached to Vidisha and at Vidisha in Mohangiri, she reached to the house of her maternal uncle Randeer, who left her at Khari Fatak. 9. Prosecutrix (PW2) deposed that thereafter when she was going for committing suicide on railway track, then one person met her, who caught hold her and took her to Police Station Gyaraspur, where she lodged report and put her signature on report and FIR (ExP-2) is that report and thereafter she was medically examined in hospital by lady doctor, who took out her underwear and at her instance spot map (ExP-3) was prepared. DSP Rakesh Puri (PW4) deposed that he prepared the spot map (ExP-3) at the instance of prosecutrix (PW2) and he received the caste certificate of the prosecutrix. 10. DSP Rakesh Puri (PW4) deposed that he prepared the spot map (ExP-3) at the instance of prosecutrix (PW2) and he received the caste certificate of the prosecutrix. 10. ASI, S.J.Qureshi (PW5), who was working as ASI at Police Station Gyaraspur deposed that on 7.2.2008 he recorded FIR (ExP-2) in presence of the prosecutrix (PW2) in accordance with the missing person case enquiry report and as narrated by the prosecutrix and the rojnamcha sanha (ExP-10) is also proved by him, but it is clear from the perusal of FIR (ExP-2) that though it bears signature of prosecutrix (PW2), it has not been recorded on narration of prosecutrix, but it has been recorded on the basis of enquiry report of missing person Case No. 2/2008 of Police Station Gyaraspur, which also contains the total description of missing person report lodged by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Naulash. 11. Prosecutrix (PW2) deposed in para 26 that where respondent committed rape with her, small grass was existing, therefore, her back was not injured and no bleeding occurred at the time of rape. In cross-examination, she also admitted that greeting card (ExD-2) bears her hand written portions and in cross-examination (para 21), she voluntarily deposed that the boy was Rakesh, to whom she has presented greeting card (ExD-2), but ExD-1 and another greeting card ExD-3 were not having her hand writing. Prosecutrix deposed in para 16 that at the time of incident her uncle Pappu (PW6) was Sarpanch of the relating Gram Panchayat. In para 18, she deposed that respondent left her by motorcycle nearer to a bus, then she had cried and thereafter bus employees have opened the door and assured her that till morning she would be left to her village. In para 19, she deposed that the driver and conductor of relating bus were acquainted with her, but the relating driver and conductor were not examined as witnesses. 12. Contrary to the evidence of complainant Pappu @ Mohar Singh (PW6), prosecutrix deposed in para 12 that complainant's house is adjacent to her house and near to her house, houses of Hameer Singh, Dasiram, Jawahr Singn and Bansilal are situated and on other side of the road there are houses of other people. She admitted in para 13 that respondent Rajesh was cleaner of Shakti bus and in para 14, she deposed that she was acquainted with respondent prior to the incident. She admitted in para 13 that respondent Rajesh was cleaner of Shakti bus and in para 14, she deposed that she was acquainted with respondent prior to the incident. In para 15, she deposed that in the night those two persons, who came in front her house, they had worn coats and they have tied their mouths by muffler, therefore, she could not identify them at that time. She deposed in para 15 that she was compelled to sit on motorcycle, then she had protested and she cried also, but later on her mouth was pressed. 13. Prosecutrix (PW2) deposed in para 9 that by which bus she reached to Vidisha, Neelesh was driver of that bus, who left her at Vidisha bus stand in the morning of date 6th Feb. and on same day she reached to her Mama Randeer's house and on next day i.e., 7 th Feb. Pappu chacha met her as on date 6th Feb., Randeer Mama had telephonically intimated Pappu chacha that she was at his house. Therefore, it is clear that prosecutrix (PW2) has exaggerated in her examination-in-chief (para 4 and 5) that her Randeer Mam left her at Khariphatak and thereafter when she was going for committing suicide, then one person caught hold and and took her to his house where Pappu chacha met her. It is clear that prosecutrix's evidence is full of totally unnatural and unbelievable facts. 14. Prosecutrix (PW2) deposed in para 11 that her house is situated at village Naulash and is having two rooms and in the Courtyard there is a space for bathing and on one side of the Courtyard a small wall is situated where an opening is made, but that opening is not having any door. At her instance spot map (ExP-3) was prepared by Investigating Officer DSP Rakesh Puri (PW4). Prosecutrix has clearly deposed that at the time of incident, when she came out of her house for answering the call of nature at 2-30 a.m., then Rajesh was standing in front her house. It appears unnatural or unbelievable that respondent was such a genius astrologer who was having prior knowledge that in the intervening night at 2-30 a.m. prosecutrix would came out of her house for answering the call of nature, so he was prepared with one companion, who was driving the motorcycle for abducting the prosecutrix. It appears unnatural or unbelievable that respondent was such a genius astrologer who was having prior knowledge that in the intervening night at 2-30 a.m. prosecutrix would came out of her house for answering the call of nature, so he was prepared with one companion, who was driving the motorcycle for abducting the prosecutrix. All these unnatural and unbelievable events indicate that the whole incident was preplanned and after recovery of prosecutrix, she presented a colourful version of incident to complainant and police. It is clear from FIR that Randeer Thakur, resident of Mohangiri, Vidisha had intimated complainant Pappu @ Mohar Singh (PW6) that prosecutrix had came to his house and Randeer had left her upto Mandi Gate. Therefore, the evidence given by prosecutrix that complainant Pappu chacha met her at Randeer's house is totally falsified by FIR (ExP-2), which bears signature of prosecutrix (PW2). 15. It is surprising that prosecutrix deposed that at the time of incident at odd hours, 2-30 a.m. she was studying , but the learned Special Prosecutor who conducted the trial before the Special Court did not ask any question to the prosecutrix about her date of birth or her educational qualification or regarding her date of birth recorded in school record. Similarly, it is also surprising that no school record regarding date of birth was proved before the trial Court, though charge under section 363 of the IPC regarding kidnapping of a minor girl was framed against respondent. 16. In absence of any school record regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix (PW2), the only evidence available to Special Court was regarding radiological opinion given by Dr. Smt. Kanti Madoiya (PW3), who in her radiological information (ExP-6) opined that on the date of radiological examination of the prosecutrix, i.e., 8.2.2008 prosecutrix's age was appearing to be 18 years or more than 18 years. 17. In the light of well settled legal position, the possibility of six months error on both side of radiological opinion is possible, therefore it was not proved from the evidence available on record that on the date of incident, ie., 5.2.2008 prosecutrix (PW2) was below the age of 18 years or a minor. 18. From the evidence available on record, it is appearing that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in eloping with respondent without intimating anyone including complainant. 18. From the evidence available on record, it is appearing that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in eloping with respondent without intimating anyone including complainant. After reaching to Randeer Mama's house, she did not report the matter at Police Station, Vidisha, nor she intimated the incident to bus driver and conductor, though she was acquainted with them. All these surprising facts clearly demonstrate that her evidence could not be believed on its face value. 19. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has properly and legally analyzed and appreciated the entire evidence available on record and did not err in acquitting the respondent. It is well settled that scope of interference against the judgment of acquittal being much limited in absence of perversity. If the view taken by trial Court appears to be reasonable, possible and plausible, then there is no question to interfere it. The appeal filed by the appellant/State is devoid of any substance. 20. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant/State of MP is hereby dismissed and the acquittal recorded by the Special Court in aforesaid finding is affirmed. With a copy of this order, record of trial Court be sent back immediately.