JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred against conviction of the trial Court for the offences under Section 376(1) IPC; Section 3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the father of the victim P.W.3, filed a complaint stating that P.W.3 was aged 17 years and on 03.03.2016, when she did not return from coolie work, P.W.2, his wife went in search of P.W.3. One Gaddapati Janamma informed that the appellant took P.W.3 to his house. As soon as P.W.2 went to the house of the appellant, the door was locked and she tried to forcibly open the door, then the appellant opened the door and ran away. On questioning, P.W.3 stated that the appellant used to take her to his house and rape her. After arrival of P.W.1 from work, a complaint was lodged in the night at 00.30 hours i.e., early hours of 04.03.2016. 3. After completion of investigation, the Police, Kethepally Police Station, filed charge sheet and after trial, the appellant was convicted as stated supra. 4. Heard Sri M.Vijaya Kanth, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sudarshan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. The main ground argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the victim P.W.3, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.3, who entered into the witness box stated in chief examination that the accused committed rape on her. However, in the cross-examination conducted immediately after the chief examination resiled from her statement. P.W.3-victim, deposed as follows in cross-examination. “My father installs water taps and he is plumber. I don not attend any work. I stay at home. I can identify the police. I cannot say the colour of the uniform worn by the police. The police who was out side told me to depose before the court. It is true a quarrel took place between my father and the accused with regard to non installation of water taps. It is true after the said quarrel my father threatened the accused and went to the Police Station and gave report. I am not in the habit of going towards the house of the accused. It is true a quarrel took place between my father and the accused with regard to non installation of water taps. It is true after the said quarrel my father threatened the accused and went to the Police Station and gave report. I am not in the habit of going towards the house of the accused. It is true the accused never troubled me. Except the quarrel with regard to the taps there are no other disputes between us and the accused. I was not examined by the police, SDPO or by any Magistrate. I do not remember what I deposed in my chief examination. The accused did not commit rape against me. All the questions were posed to me in Telugu. I answered after understanding the question and after thinking. It is true I am deposing at the instance of the police. The alleged incident never took place. I was not examined by the medical officer.” 6. As seen from the record, P.W.3 is a self-condemned witness, totally contradicting her own evidence. In her chief examination, at one breath, implicated the accused and immediately during the cross-examination, she totally resiled from what is stated in the chief examination. 7. The trial Court has found at para 25 of the impugned judgment that the victim is not mentally disabled. When the trial Court has the benefit of interacting with P.W.3 and finding that P.W.3 was not a mentally disabled girl, her contradictory versions in chief and cross-examination has to be viewed cautiously. 8. The parents, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution and P.W.1 disowned the complaint and only identified his signature on the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1. The scribe of the complaint was examined as P.W.7, who stated that the contents were written on the information provided by a person. He did not mention that it was P.W.1, on whose information Ex.P1 was drafted. 9. The trial court, on the basis of the chief examination and also on the basis of the seized cloths of the victim showing the presence of human semen, recorded conviction. 10. The trial Court, in the absence of the reliable evidence, cannot convict a person. Higher the punishment, the Court has to be more cautious and insist upon reliable evidence to conclude guilt. 10. The trial Court, in the absence of the reliable evidence, cannot convict a person. Higher the punishment, the Court has to be more cautious and insist upon reliable evidence to conclude guilt. Ignoring the fact that the complaint is not proved and parents, P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile, the trial Court erred in recording the conviction only on the basis of the chief examination and inconclusive medical evidence. The medical evidence does not conclude that the semen and spermatozoa found on the vaginal swabs and pyzama of the victim is that of the appellant. During the investigation, the semen should have been subjected to DNA testing to pin point that the semen and spermatozoa found was that of the accused. In the present situation of hostility of P.Ws.1 and 2 and unreliable evidence of P.W.3, it is not safe to convict the appellant. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC; Section 3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act recorded by the trial Court, is set aside. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court in SC No.67 of 2016, dated 02.07.2021. Bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.