IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and appellate courts should be cautious in interfering with acquittals unless based on a perverse appreciation of the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th October 1999 passed by the Trial Court, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, acquitting the respondent- accused for the offences for which he was charged.

2. As per the case of the prosecution and as per the charge at Exh.11, on 17th July 1998 at around 12:30 p.m. the respondent- accused committed offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the prosecutrix who was aged about 8 years. The complaint at Exh.56 was given by the father of the prosecutrix on 24th July 1998 making such allegations against the respondent-accused. Thus, the incident which has occurred on 17th July 1998, the complaint has been given by the father of the victim on 24th July 1998 by tendering the explanation that since his wife was not at home and was elsewhere and after due deliberation with the family members and the in-laws, the complaint has been registered. It is pertinent to note that the mother of the victim has not been examined as a witness, however, her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded.

3. The trial court, after examining the ocular as well as the medical evidence, has acquitted the respondent-accused for the offences for which he was charged.

4. Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval, while assailing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court, has submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. He has submitted that there is a direct evidence of the prosecutrix who is examined as PW-7 at Exh.147. Learned APP has submitted that she, in her deposition, has specifically narrated the manner in which the incident had occurred and the accused had tried to commit rape on her. However, the trial court has disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix, which is erroneous. Learned APP has submitted that as per the ocular evidence of the prosecutrix, she was aged about 8 years. The respondent, who is the teacher, had called her in his house and when she had prepared the rice and also cleaned the house, the respondent-accused had closed the doors and windows of the house and had forcibly committed the rape on her by carrying her on the bed forcefully. He has submitted that the prosecutrix immediately contacted the first available person, i.e. PW-10 Pushpaben, who is the grandmother of the prosecutrix and thereafter she was taken for medical treatment and was examined by the Medical Officers. The first was the PW-1 Dr.Ganpatsinh Ambadanji Charan examined at Exh.14, who has recorded the history. He has submitted that the other medical officers who have been examined by the prosecution being PW-4 Dr.Jinabhai Amthabhai Yadav examined at Exh.30, who is the Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar, who has also confirmed the offence of rape being committed on the victim. Learned APP has also referred to the evidence of the PW-5 Dr.Manubhai Hirabhai Solanki examined at Exh.32, who is the third Medical Officer who has examined the victim on 24th July 1998, has also confirmed that an attempt was made on the victim for commission of rape, however, the accused was not successful. Learned APP has also referred to the evidence of PW-8 Dr.Ashwinbhai Joitabhai Patel at Exh.49 and submitted that he has also confirmed that an attempt was made for commission of the offence of rape on the victim. Learned APP has referred that the doctor has also recorded the history of the prosecutrix. Learned APP has submitted that even the panch witnesses being PW-2 Hajiben Abdulbhai Mansuri and PW-3 Kamleshkumar Jayantilal Pandya have supported the case of the prosecution so far as the recovery of the clothes of the prosecutrix and the discovery of the clothes of the respondent- accused is concerned. Learned APP has also referred to the evidence of the PW-10 Pushpaben Ratilal Trivedi examined at Exh.53, who happens to be the grandmother of the prosecutrix and the first person who