SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2016 delivered in S.C, PCS No. 129 of 2015 by 1st Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Hyderabad, whereby the accused was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 377, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and accordingly, acquitted from all the charges.

2. In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2015, at 06:00 hours, PW 1 lodge a complaint stating that her daughter Huda Begum was found missing, accordingly, a case in Cr. No. 112 of 2015 was registered by PW 19 Sub-Inspector of Police and handed over to PW 20 Inspector of Police. During investigation, on 14.08.2015, at Aman Nagar-B, at Mohd. Alis new house, which was under construction, PW 20 found dead body of a girl floating in water sump in ground-floor and identified it as that of the daughter of elder brother of PW 4. On receipt of the above complaint, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added in the crime, and investigation was handed over to PW 21.

3. During the course of investigation, PW 21 visited the scene of offence; conducted panchanama; drawn rough sketch in the presence of PWS. 12 and 13; seized material objects under scene of offence panchanama; recorded the statements of panch witnesses; took photographs of the dead body and the scene of offence; sent the dead body to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where post-mortem examination was conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded. While so, on 21.08.2015 at 08:00 hours, the Inspector of Police apprehended the accused, and on his confessional statement, seized blue colour shirt from the house of the accused and pant wearing by him at the time of committing crime. The doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, opined that the cause of the death was due to ligature strangulation.

4. The investigation further revealed that on 11.08.2015, the accused and his friend went to a wine shop, consumed alcohol from 16:00 to 18:00 hours and they separated from each other. After reaching Murad Mahal Road near beef shop the accused saw the victim girl proceeding alone beside Quba Mosque lane. When the accused caught her hand, she made hue and cry, but he forcibly took her to a dark and barren place in a house under construction. While struggling herself, the girl said that she would inform the same to her parents, but the accused forcibly committed rape on her by having unnatural sex. Thereafter, strangulated her to death and concealed her body in the water sump with an intention to escape from the public view. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet.

5. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 377, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, however, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it examined PWS. 1 to 22 and got marked Exs. P1 to P28 and M.OS 1 to 5.

7. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C wherein he denied the incriminating evidence led against him. However, no defence witnesses were examined nor got marked any documents on behalf of the accused. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, held the guilt was not established and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence, the appeal by the State.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant State submits that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 377, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 6 of P.O.C.S.O Act are made out by the prosecution against the ac