1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the state.

2. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 148/2010 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C. for brevity) and also for an offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 of IPC, while it has convicted the accused to simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in respect of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.

3. The facts of the case as stated by the prosecution are as follows:

The complainant-Irabasappa had stated that his daughter-Iravva, though married had been deserted by her husband and she was residing along with him. That she had taken their cattle for grazing on 05.06.2008 and that at about 1.00 p.m. when his daughter was near Narasinganavar Halla of Kurubagatti village, the respondent-accused is said to have come there and had over powered her and had outraged her modesty. A case was said to be registered on the basis of the complainant. However, on further investigation a case was said to be registered against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC as well. He was said to have been arrested on 07.06.2008 and further proceedings were taken and he had stood trial.

4. It is on an analysis of the evidence that was tendered the Court below has rendered the above impugned judgment. It is pointed out that the trial Court in proceeding to analyze the evidence has firstly found that Ex.P13 the complaint, indicated that the prosecutrix PW-1 had come back home crying at about 2.00 p.m. and she was accompanied by PW-6, Hanamantapa and PW-9, Vithal, and on inquiry the complainant was told that his daughter had been molested and her blouse was torn by the accused and it was for that reason that she was crying. The witnesses, PWs 6 and 9, in turn had informed the complainant, particularly PW-9, that he had heard cries from the Halla, where the incident is said to have been taken place and on going there he saw the accused physically molesting the victim and on seeing the witness PW-9, the accused is said to have run away from the spot.

5. It is thereafter PW-6 also was said to have been called to the spot by PW-9, and both of them tried to console the victim and then had brought her home. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR had been registered only for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 354 of the IPC. It is on subsequent investigation that other provisions namely 376 read with 511 of the IPC were introduced.

6. PW-1 the victim is said to have been born deaf and dumb, and her evidence had been recorded with the assistance of a translator, PW-10, who was said to be an educator for the deaf and dumb, through means of signs. The prosecutrix is said to have narrated that around 1.00 p.m. the accused had come and tied her eyes with a cloth and had torn her blouse. He is then said to have handled her breasts and had felled her to the ground. He had then forced his hand between her legs and had penetrated her vagina with his penis. All these details had been narrated by means of signs which were in turn interpreted by PW-10 and recorded by the Court. It is further narrated that the accused had run away after having satisfied his lust.

7. The evidence of PW-3 was to the effect that, he learnt of the incident only when PWs. 6 and 9 brought PW-1 home and when they narrated the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred and that PW-9 had seen the accused running away from the spot and that he was naked from the waist down and he was holding his underwear in his hand while running away. It is this circumstance of the sexual act committed by the accused, which was significantly missing from