( 1 ) HEARD Sri C. Ramchandra raju, learned Counsel representing the appellant-accused and Sri Niranjan Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

( 2 ) SRI C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would contend that there is an illegality that would touch the very jurisdiction of the special Court inasmuch as it is clear from the record that the charge-sheet was filed straightway on 11-4-1997, and cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge on 22-5-1997 and there is no committal and hence the whole trial is vitiated.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel elaborately explained the scope and ambit of Sections 193 and 209 of Criminal Procedure Code and also the object of committal proceedings and the illegality, which would vitiate the very trial itself. In the alternative, the learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence available on record and would submit that the evidence is so artificial and the same cannot be believed and on merits also the appellant-accused is entitled for acquittal.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned additional Public Prosecutor, Sri Niranjan reddy would contend that the object of the committal proceedings is only to put on notice, the accused, of the charges with which he is charged and the mere fact there was no committal would not cause any prejudice to the accused and there is ample evidence on record i. e. , the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 15 and Exs. P-1 to P-13 and especially in the light of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, the said findings need not be disturbed. However, in all fairness the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge on 11-4-1997 and cognizance was taken on 22-5-1997 and there is no committal of the case.

( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution in short is that the victim girl prosecutrix-PW1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and is daughter of one Madhavaiah through his second wife. The father of the victim girl will be doing business in iron scrap in jeeva Kona area of Tirupathi. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW-1 was married to a person working as Scavenger in Tirupathi Municipality by name Ganesh, but because of great disparity in the age the victim girl-PW1 refused to join her husband. Since one month prior to the offence the husband of the victim girl, ganesh was forcing the parents of the victim girl to send her to him for leading marital life. Hence, the victim girl with a view to escape from joining her husband absconded from the house and had taken shelter in the house of P. Chengalrayulu, resident of Rayalpuram Harijanawada in chandragiri, who is related to her as junior paternal uncle. Instead of keeping of the victim girl idle, Chengalrayulu engaged her as a Servant-maid in the house of PW2- j. Subba Lakshmi, a resident of Akkagarla colony in Chandragiri. While working in the house of PW-2, the victim girl PW1 entered in the house of a neighbouring muslim gentleman Mahaboob Basha-PW9 and committed theft of Rs. 10/- and while she was coming out of the said house she was caught red handedly and consequently there was a panchayat where the neighbouring people of the locality Akkagarla colony gathered. It appears that the accused originally was a resident of Kerala and had settled in Akkagarla colony, chandragiri and eking his livelihood by running a tea shop. At the time of Panchayat on 1-7-1996 at about 9 p. m. the accused also joined the people and began to question PW1-victim girl about the theft committed by her and at the same time the accused developed an idea to use PW1 sexually. At about 10 p. m. on 1-7-1996 the accused managed to convene the other elders that the victim girl would not speak truth if she was interrogated by all of them and managed to take PW-1 to a distance under the guise of interrogating her. After taking to a distance the accused consoled PW1 and directed her to abscond and h