JUDGMENT :-

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh whereby the order of acquittal dated 11th February, 1999 passed by the Trial Court was reversed. The appellant, while impugning the judgment under appeal, raised the following contentions: -

1. The High Court could not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal of the Trial Court which was very well-reasoned, based upon proper appreciation of evidence and was in consonance with the settled principles of law. The High Court, thus, has exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the judgment of acquittal of the Court of Sessions.

2. There are serious contradictions between the ocular and the medical evidence which materially affect the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is entitled to a reversal of the judgment of the High Court.

3. There was no sexual intercourse between the appellant and the victim. The prosecution has not been able to establish any link between the commission of the alleged offence and the appellant.

4. The case of the prosecution is based upon the sole testimony of the victim. All these circumstances, examined cumulatively, entitle the accused for an order of acquittal.

5. Lastly, the punishment awarded to the accused is too harsh.

2. These contentions have been raised with reference to the case brought on record by the prosecution. The factual matrix of the case as per the prosecution is:

3. The accused/appellant was working as a ball picker in S.V. University tennis court, Tirupati, and in that capacity he was having the custody of the key to the storeroom situated on the south-east of the tennis court. The tennis net and other articles were stored in this place. On 7th September, 1997 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused saw a girl named A. Haritha, who was standing alone outside the red building. It may be noticed, that the mother of the victim girl, namely Sampuramma, PW5, was working as a maidservant in the red building attached to the University.

4. A. Haritha, the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and was about 11 years of age at the time of the incident. The accused asked her to come along with him. At first she refused but the accused enticed her on the pretext of purchasing gold colour plastic bangles. When she agreed to accompany him, he bought her the bangles and then took her to the store room near the tennis court, the key to which he was possessing. He opened the lock and took the victim inside the room and committed rape on her against her will. In fact, he even threatened to assault her. One Narayanaswamy, PW3, a rickshaw puller, who was waiting by the side of Gate No. 3 of the S.V. University noticed the accused taking the victim into the store room and thus, became suspicious. He went to the store room and tapped the door several times. However, the accused did not open the door at first, but upon further insistence of PW3, he did so. PW3 saw the victim girl weeping. The accused slammed the door. Suspecting that the accused might have done some wrong to the minor girl, Narayanswami, PW3 bolted the door from outside and ran to inform the authorities and/or the police. On his way he met Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic P.S., Tirupati, Sh. S.M. Ramesh, PW1, who was standing near the NCC Office traffic point and informed him of the incident. Immediately, PW1 along with another Traffic R.S.I, R. Sivanandakishore, PW4, accompanied by PW3 went to the said storeroom, opened the door from outside and found the victim girl A. Haritha. She complained of pain in her vaginal region. PW1 took the victim girl as well as the accused to the SVU Campus Police Station and made a complaint, Ex. P.1, based upon which FIR, Ex. P.7 was registered under Sections 363 and 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and the S