JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gagad in S.C.No.1/2015. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant (CW-1) lodged a complaint on 30.09.2014 at 16.00 hours alleging that on 26.09.2014 at about 3.00 pm., when she was alone at home, the accused entered the house and requested for a glass of water which she gave. The accused drank the water and later closed the door and gagged the complainant. The complainant allegedly protested, to which the accused threatened to kill her and later raped her. She alleged that as a result, she felt inebriated and slept off. Later the accused woke her up and took her in a bus. When she regained her conscious she was traveling in a bus along with the accused and when she enquired where she was being taken, the accused reprimanded her to keep quiet and not to disclose it to anybody and that the accused promised to marry her. Later the accused allegedly took her to Chikkamagaluru and then to Dharmasthala. On Sunday morning, she and the accused bathed in Nethravathi river and later at 12.00 Noon when they were in Dharmasthala, CW-4 who was a resident of the same village met the accused and the complainant and enquired what they were doing at Dharmasthala. It was alleged that the accused informed CW-4 that they desired to marry. The complainant then disclosed that she was intimidated to accompany the accused. CW-4 is stated to have informed the parents of the complainant and on the same day at 9.00 pm., CW-5, CW-7 and CW-8 went to Dharmasthala and got her back and left the accused at Dharmasthala. The complainant lodged a complaint with Mundaragi Police Station on 30.09.2014, who registered Cr.No.146/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 506, 376, 448, 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The complainant was examined at the District Hospital, Gadag on 30.09.2014 and it was found that she had a history of “recent hymen tears and bruises on the breast”. It was also found that she had a history of Psychosis and was under medication. The complainant is stated to have disclosed that she was pinned to the ground and was raped. It was also found that she had a history of Psychosis and was under medication. The complainant is stated to have disclosed that she was pinned to the ground and was raped. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the JMFC., Mundargi on 01.10.2014. It is alleged that the accused was apprehended on 01.10.2014 and he was subjected to examination at the District Hospital, Mundargi and it was found that there were no injuries on the body or on the pubic area or thighs of the accused. The Forensic Science Laboratory submitted its report indicating that there were no seminal stains in the materials examined and there was no skin tissue in the nail clippings of the accused and the complainant. The prosecution also found out that the complainant had undergone treatment at Dharwad Institute of Mental Health And Neuro Sciences (DIMHANS) as an outpatient on 19.09.2014 and she was diagnosed to be suffering from Psychosis and was treated. Based on the above, the prosecution filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 452, 366, 376(2)(l) and 506 of IPC in S.C No.1/2015. The Trial Court took cognizance and thereafter framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 366, 506, 376(2)(l) of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Before the Trial Court, the evidence of PWs.1 to 21 was recorded and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked and M.O. Nos.1 to 10 were marked. The accused did not offer any evidence. The Trial Court noticed that there were no eye witnesses to the crime and that the case had to be entirely decided based on circumstantial evidence. 5. The Trial Court noticed the contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 and also noticed that though PW.1 claimed that after she was raped, the accused injured her with a blade, but the evidence of the Doctor did not show any injury. The Trial Court noticed that while PW.1 claimed that she had not suffered any injuries, PW.13 -Doctor claimed that she noticed injuries on the breast of PW.1 and treated this as a material contradiction. The Trial Court noticed the evidence of PW.1 and held that PW.1 had consented to the act. The Trial Court noticed that while PW.1 claimed that she had not suffered any injuries, PW.13 -Doctor claimed that she noticed injuries on the breast of PW.1 and treated this as a material contradiction. The Trial Court noticed the evidence of PW.1 and held that PW.1 had consented to the act. The Trial Court also noticed that PW.1 accompanied the accused after the alleged rape and walked from her house to Bidarahalli bus stand and then to Chikkamagaluru, Dharmasthala etc., but yet she did not raise a hue or a cry to attract the attention of neighbours and passersby. The Trial Court found innumerable contradictions in the evidence and also noticed the evidence of PW.2, who being a muslim had claimed to have gone to Dharmasthala for a darshan of the Lord. The Trial Court also noticed that while PWs.4 and 5 stated that they handed over the accused to the Police Station at Dharmasthala, but PW.1 stated that they left the accused at Dharmasthala and that she traveled back to Mundargi along with her father, brother and maternal uncle. Contrarily, PW.8 claimed that the accused was apprehended at Manjunatha Temple, Dharmasthala. In view of all these contradictions and in view of the conduct of the complainant – PW.1, the Trial Court felt that the evidence on record was not sufficient to convict the accused and consequently, acquitted the accused. It is this judgment that is challenged in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the lower Court records, both oral and documentary evidence and also the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. The following questions arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved the commission of the alleged offences under Sections 452, 376(2)(l), 366 and 506 of IPC by the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Court below calls for any interference? 8. The aforesaid points are answered in the following paragraphs. 9. PW.1 in her complaint at Ex.P1 claimed that on 26.09.2014 at about 3 p.m, she was alone at home and that the accused came in and requested for a glass of water, which she gave and that the accused closed the door and held her. She alleged that the accused gagged her and thereafter, raped her. 9. PW.1 in her complaint at Ex.P1 claimed that on 26.09.2014 at about 3 p.m, she was alone at home and that the accused came in and requested for a glass of water, which she gave and that the accused closed the door and held her. She alleged that the accused gagged her and thereafter, raped her. The complainant claimed that she felt inebriated and slept off and thereafter, the accused woke her up and they traveled by bus. When she regained consciousness, she was in a train. Though she allegedly demanded the accused as to where she was being taken, the accused is stated to have threatened her and thereafter, he took her to Chikkamagaluru and Dharmasthala and on Sunday i.e., on 28.09.2014, the accused took her to Netravati river, where she bathed. She stated that PW.2 saw them and that PW.1 narrated everything to PW.2 and that PW.2 intimated the parents of the complainant and thereafter, her father, brother and maternal uncle came down to Dharmasthala at about 9 p.m. and took her back leaving the accused at Dharmasthala. Ex.P16 is a certificate issued by DIMHANS which indicates that the complainant was suffering from psychosis and that she had visited the Institute on 19.08.2014 and thereafter, she was treated as an outpatient on 19.09.2014. The documentary evidence such as the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not inculpate the accused. The spot mahazar at Ex.P17 indicates that there were houses adjacent to the spot of the crime. The physical examination of PW.1 showed that she was 24 years, average built and well nourished. She was wearing a salwar kameez (MO.1 & 2) which were not torn/damaged. 10. The statement of PW.1 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., indicates that she did not know the accused. She alleged that she was mentally ill and that she used to consume medicines which made her drowsy and that on the date of crime, she had consumed medicines. She alleged that the accused threatened her to accompany him and thereafter, they went out of the house and when she woke up, she found herself in a train. She alleged that she was thereafter taken to Dharmasthala where at, PW.2 identified them and that she confided with PW.2 about the crime and also that she was not in love with the accused. She alleged that she was thereafter taken to Dharmasthala where at, PW.2 identified them and that she confided with PW.2 about the crime and also that she was not in love with the accused. PW.2 is stated to have informed them to be seated at the bus stand and thereafter, called her parents and brother, who escorted her back to Mundargi. However, she stated in her chief-examination that the accused undressed her and raped her and closed her mouth with his hands. She alleged that she did not consent when the accused forced upon her. She also stated that after she was raped, the accused informed her to wear her clothes and slashed her hand by a blade and after she wore her dress, he forcibly took her to the bus stand and from there they went to Dharmasthala. She alleged that nobody saw them and by the time they went to Dharmasthala the next day it was 3 p.m. She claimed that PW.2 saw them near the Temple and enquired as to why they were there. She also stated that PW.2 informed her father and that the same day PWs.5 and 8 came to Dharmasthala and took her back and handed over the accused to Police Station at Dharmasthala. During her cross-examination, she disclosed that the accused was a resident of the same village where she was residing. She also alleged that when the accused forced himself upon her, she protested and pushed the accused away and also screamed at him. She also alleged that she had beaten him, kicked him and bitten/ pierced him (chooridene). She also claimed that the accused did not bite her and that she had not suffered any injury. She alleged that when the accused raped her, he was wearing his underwear and that he was not nude. Her evidence reads as under: Any Other Language She further stated that the accused held her hand and took her from her house to Bidarahalli bus stand and from there, they went to Chikkamagaluru and that she did not protest. She stated that till she reached Chikkamagaluru, she did not protest in the bus and at Chikkamagaluru bus stand also, she did not protest and from there, they went to Dharmasthala, where also she did not protest. Curiously, she alleged that she regained consciousness only after they reached Dharmasthala. She stated that till she reached Chikkamagaluru, she did not protest in the bus and at Chikkamagaluru bus stand also, she did not protest and from there, they went to Dharmasthala, where also she did not protest. Curiously, she alleged that she regained consciousness only after they reached Dharmasthala. She also stated that the accused and the complainant bathed at the river in Dharmasthala. She alleged that at Chikkamagaluru, both the accused and PW.1 went to a hotel and had breakfast. She admitted that there was no direct bus service from Bidarahalli to Chikkamagaluru. She voluntarily stated that they walked from Bidarahalli to Bellatti. 11. It is evident from the evidence on record that the complainant was allegedly raped in her house on the floor and that the PW.1 protested and resisted, but yet the accused allegedly committed the crime. The medical evidence does not show any injury on the body of the accused and there are no tell tale signs of rape and it is highly impossible for a man to gag a woman, undress her, pin her to the ground and rape her if the woman is unwilling or protesting against the advances and cannot at any rate go unnoticed by neighbours. On the contrary, the circumstances clearly point out that PW.1 had consented to the act else and till complaint was registered, she had not protested or made any hue and cry about the alleged rape. It is difficult to comprehend as to why the whole crime went unnoticed. It is also difficult to accept the conduct of PW.1 in walking away from her house with hands held to Bellatti and from there to Chikkamagaluru and then to Dharmasthala. PW.1 claimed in her complaint that when she regained consciousness, she was in a train, but in her evidence before the Court she claimed she regained consciousness at Dharmasthala and that they traveled by bus. The distance between Mundargi and Dharmasthala is over 250 Kilometers and it is well nigh impossible for the complainant not to protest during her journey from her village till Dharmasthala. No attempt was made to lodge a complaint at Dharmasthala which is again an intrinsically suspicious circumstance. 12. The other witness PW.2, who claimed to have seen the accused and PW.1 was initially treated as hostile and in his cross-examination, he claimed that PW.1 did not say anything about the alleged rape. No attempt was made to lodge a complaint at Dharmasthala which is again an intrinsically suspicious circumstance. 12. The other witness PW.2, who claimed to have seen the accused and PW.1 was initially treated as hostile and in his cross-examination, he claimed that PW.1 did not say anything about the alleged rape. He no doubt identified his statement Ex.P4 but resiled from what is contained therein. He is not an eye witness to the incident. 13. PW.3 is the paternal uncle of PW.1, who stated that PW.1 disclosed to him that the accused gave something to PW.1 to drink and that she lost consciousness and when she regained consciousness, she was in a train. 14. PW.4 is the father of the complainant who is also not an eye-witness but claimed to have gone to Dharmasthala and brought the complainant back after handing over the accused to the Police Station at Dharmasthala. In this regard no material information was placed on record. 15. PW.5 is the brother of the complainant who also stated that he was informed that after the crime, the complainant lost her consciousness and when she regained it, she was in a train. He also stated that the accused and the complainant traveled to Chikkamagaluru by train. This witness also stated that after they escorted the complainant to Mundargi, they handed over the accused to Police Station at Dharmasthala. 16. The panch witnesses, namely, PW.6 and 7, turned hostile. PW.8 is the Constable who allegedly apprehended the complainant from the temple at Dharmasthala. PW.9 is the Medical Officer who examined the accused and found that there were no marks or injuries. PW.10 who is the witness to the spot mahazar turned hostile and PW.11 is the woman Police who escorted the prosecutrix to the District Hospital at Gadag. PW.12 is the Judicial Officer, who recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. PW.13 is the Medical Officer who examined the complainant. PW.14 is the Medical Superintendent of DIMHANS who issued Ex.P16 and PW.15 is the witness to the spot mahazar. PW.16 is the Police Constable, who submitted the M.Os. for examination at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. PW.17 is a Police Constable, who submitted the FIR before the Court. PW.18 is the Police Constable who escorted the accused to the Hospital for examination. PW.19 is the woman police, who registered Crime No.146/2014. PW.16 is the Police Constable, who submitted the M.Os. for examination at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. PW.17 is a Police Constable, who submitted the FIR before the Court. PW.18 is the Police Constable who escorted the accused to the Hospital for examination. PW.19 is the woman police, who registered Crime No.146/2014. PW.20 is the Investigating Officer, who took over the investigation. PW.21 is the Investigating Officer. 17. A perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not clearly establish the commission of the crime by the accused. There are inherent inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses and therefore, it is not sufficient enough to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances point towards a tacit consent by the complainant. The conduct of the complainant in accompanying the accused from her place to Dharmasthala by various means of transport indicates that the complainant had voluntarily gone with the accused and therefore, it cannot be held that the accused has committed the offences as alleged. 18. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding Criminal Appeal No.549/2007 (The State of Karnataka vs. Gala Hanumaiah disposed of on 04.03.2013) involving facts that were similar in nature, wherein the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 of IPC, this Court held that the conduct of the complainant in traveling with the accused and staying with him for a considerable period of time before lodging a complaint, consent of the accused was evident. This Court categorically held “the Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, is justified in concluding that the victim voluntarily went along with the accused to various places and she had not lodged any complaint whatsoever till her presence was secured by the Police”. 19. It is well settled that an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered and merely because another view is possible, Courts should not upset an order of acquittal. Consequently, we hold that the prosecution is unable to prove the commission of the alleged offences by the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court was thoroughly justified in acquitting the accused. Hence, the following : ORDER The appeal filed by the prosecution fails and is dismissed. The bail bond, if any, furnished shall stand cancelled.