This revision has arisen out of concurrent findings recorded by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district and V Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy district in S.C.No.132 of 2003 dated 5.2.2004 and Crl.A.No.18 of 2004 5.8.2004 respectively.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:

The accused was working as Teacher in a private school at Lingapur village, on 22.6.2002 during evening hours, the daughter of the defacto-complainant namely Tulasi informed her mother that the accused removed her underwear and inserted his pennies into her anus, as a result of which, she sustained bleeding injury to her private parts, thereafter the accused instructed the school attenders Smt.Mallamma and Chandrakala to wash the body and clothes of the victim. On 24.6.2002, the father of the victim and others questioned the accused about the incident, then the accused admitted his guilt but prayed not to give any report against him. Thereafter, the other school girls namely Uma Devi and Krishna Veni also informed the father of the victim that the accused committed the same offence against them also several times. Further a report was given on 24.6.2002 at 14.30 hrs which was registered in Cr.No.118 of 2002 on the file of Medchal P.S. under Section 377 and 376(f) IPC. Further necessary investigation was done and later charge sheet was filed in the case.

3. For the prosecution, the father of the victim girl and the victim girl were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 besides examining P.Ws.3 to 22 and Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 3 were also marked. For the defence, none was examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court on consideration of the matter, found the accused guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 376(f) IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one week, whereas consequently the accused preferred Crl.A.No.18 of 2004 before the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy district and the appellate Court, on the consideration of the matter, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence this revision.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the minor girl who was examined as P.W.2 deposed that there was anal penetration of the penis of the accused and causing of injury, but the medical evidence rendered by P.W.22 would prove that there was no evidence of that and taking into consideration relevant circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the charge under Section 377 was not established, but on the other hand though the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the medical evidence does not disclose that actually the accused involved in raping her and the medical evidence of P.W.22 also discloses that she had earlier sexual intercourse, which cannot be referred to the charge of raping her when she did not speak about that aspect factually and in fact basing upon some assumptions i.e., without any proof, the Courts below upheld the charge under Section 376 IPC, which therefore is not tenable.

5. In the background of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has to be examined as to whether the Courts below properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions and imposed adequate punishment for the charge of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC.

6. Emphasizingly, the Courts below assumed lot of things even though no corresponding evidence was recorded. Pertinently, there is no evidence of rape punishable under Section 376(f) IPC either from P.W.2 or from P.W.22-Medical Officer, whereas the medical evidence of P.W.22 coupled with Ex.P19 medical certificate dated 24.6.2002 would disclose that there was evidence of her involvement in sexual intercourse earlier, which does not mean that she was raped by the accused or she had in