THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1695 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 10.12.2008 in S.C.No.343 of 2007 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 Part – II and 376 IPC and accordingly, he was acquitted. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: It is alleged that on 25.08.2006 at about 12.30 p.m., the accused took away victim girl, P.W.3 – Mylapathi Swathi, aged 8 years, to nearby field, while she and others were proceeding towards their houses for lunch. It is further alleged that the accused forcibly committed rape on P.W.3 as a result of which she sustained severe bleeding injuries and pain on her private parts. On the report given by P.W.1, the police registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 341, 506 and 376 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. The charges under Sections 341, 506 Part II and 376(2)(f) IPC were framed against the accused. When they were read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 besides the case properties, M.Os.1 and 2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for incriminating the circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 506 Part II and 376(2)(f) IPC. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor contended that the medical evidence is very clear that P.W.3 was subjected to rape and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the accused is the person, who committed rape on P.W.3 and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under the law that the accused presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. However, this Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence to know whether the findings are passed on proper appreciation of evidence on record or any perverse finding was recorded or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked. In short, there must be substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 10. When it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused wrongfully restrained P.W.3, threatened her and committed rape on her, it is for the prosecution to establish the same. 11. P.W.3, who is the victim, categorically stated that she does not know the accused, but she stated that one unknown person took her to nearby place, laid on her, inserted his penis into vagina and raped her, as a result of which, she sustained injuries to private parts. She was referred to Government hospital for treatment. Though P.W.3 stated that sexual assault was made on her, she did not identify the accused, who committed rape on her. 12. P.Ws.4 to 6 are the material witnesses to the prosecution case to indicate that the accused was the person, who committed rape on P.W.3, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W.2, who is the sister of the victim girl, also did not support the case of the prosecution. 14. P.W.1 is a teacher in Government school. Her evidence is not much relevant to show that the accused is the person who committed rape on her. 15. P.W.7 is one of the mediators, who were present at the time of scene observation report. 16. It is not in dispute that the police observed the scene of offence as shown by P.W.3. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the mediators. P.W.9 is the doctor who deposed about the capability of the accused for doing sexual intercourse. P.W.10 is the doctor, who examined the victim girl and opined that there is a possibility of sexual intercourse as there was bleeding from vagina and hymen tear was present. P.W.11 is the investigating officer. Virtually, there is no legal evidence to show that the accused committed rape on P.W.3. As the victim girl herself did not identify the accused as the person, who committed rape on her, the trial Court rightly acquitted him. There are no grounds in the impugned judgment to interfere with the same. 17. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 10.12.2008 in Sessions Case No.343 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J 3rd NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni