THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2301 OF 2004 ORDER: The lower court while acquitting the accused/respondent of offences under Sections 376, 506 and 376/511 IPC, convicted the accused under Section 448 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs.1,000/-. The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal questioning that portion of the judgment leading to acquittal of the accused of the above offences. 2. The alleged first incident of rape was on 11.11.2000 and the second incident of attempt to commit rape was on 21.11.2000. Either immediately after the first incident or immediately after the second incident, the victim P.W.1 did not give report to the police. Ex.P1 report to the police was given by P.W.1 on 01.02.2011 nearly three months after the first incident. For the first incident, there are no supporting witnesses except P.W.1 herself. After the first incident, P.W.1 did not report the matter either to her parents or to anybody including the police. During the course of the first incident, she did not raise any cries attracting attention of the neighbours. During the second attempt, P.W.1 is stated to have raised cries even before the accused touching her. The second incident was seen by some of the witnesses. In spite of it, neither the victim nor her people preferred to give any report to the police immediately. Even as per the prosecution case, the accused was going round P.W.1 doing acts to attract her attention and expressing his love towards her. Having regard to all the attending circumstances, the lower court rightly came to the conclusion that there was consent on the part of P.W.1 for the first incident. The prosecution failed to prove by cogent evidence that the victim was a minor by the date of the first incident. Her age certificate from school authorities is not filed. No age determination of P.W.1 was done by any medical and radiological expert. 3. In the absence of such evidence, the lower court rightly held that there is no evidence that P.W.1 was a minor by the date of first incident. Since there was no touch or even attempt made by the accused to commit rape on P.W.1 on the alleged second attempt, the lower court rightly came to the conclusion that there was no attempt to commit rape of P.W.1. The judgment passed by the lower court does not suffer from any infirmity either in law or in appreciation of evidence. 4. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 25, 2011. LMV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2301 OF 2004 25-11-2011 LMV