R. Balasubramanian, J.

The State is challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the judgment impugned in this appeal. Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. In S.C.No.96 of 2000 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, the respondents were tried under Sections 376, 302, 120-B and 201 I.P.C. It may be noticed that in the above referred to Sessions Case, final report was filed not only against the respondents herein arrayed as A.1 to A.5 but also against another person arrayed as A.6. The charge against A.6 in the above referred to Sessions Case was under Section 201 I.P.C. It is on record that on an application taken out by A.6 in S.C.No.96 of 2000, the prosecution case against him was split up and taken separately as S.C.No.214 of 2000 by the very same Court of Sessions. We state that the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution case against that accused also, separately tried in S.C.No.214 of 2000 and acquitted him. That judgment is also in challenge before this court by the State in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2001. At the end of the trial, the learned Judge acquitted A.1 to A.5 of all the charges framed against them. As stated earlier, the State is before this court challenging the said judgment of acquittal. For convenience sake in this judgment Anbalagan, Inspector of Police, since tried separately, will be referred whenever need arises as A.6.

3. According to the prosecution at about 7.00 p.m. on 212. 1995, the first accused raped the victim aged about 16 years, an employee in the mill belonging to his father; murdered her and to screen the evidence of the offence, all the accused hatched a conspiracy and pursuant to that conspiracy, the dead body of the victim was thrown into a well. The other accused (Inspector of Police) – against whom the case has been split up is alleged to have screened the offence by giving a false report. To prove their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 66 besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.113 and M.Os.1 to 23. The defence did not let in any oral evidence but however they marked Exs.D.1 to

D.5.

4. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased in this case, who happens to be her eldest daughter. The deceased was working in a mill called Sundaram Mills. P.W.3 also was working there. The deceased was working in the mill for the past five years. As usual, the deceased, after taking her bath, dressed herself neatly and left the house for her work in the mill between 5.30 p.m. and 5.45 p.m. on 212. 1995. P.W.1 accompanied her daughter and left her near the mill and returned to her house. Then she went to attend the calls of nature and at that time there was a power failure. Then she reached home; had her dinner and slept. Normally her daughter would come back home at 8.30 a.m. in the following morning. However her daughter did not return home even by 8.30 a.m. Telling her neighbour that if her daughter comes home, she can have her food and then sleep, P.W.1 left for her work. Till 11.00 a.m. her daughter did not return home.

P.W.1 was told that her daughter might be doing continuous shift in the mill and therefore she could go and give food to her daughter. Being sure that her daughter would not do continuous shift duty, P.W.1 left for the mill to see her daughter. There she found A.1, P.W.16 (a fitter by profession) and the owner (a lady) of the mill. Pausing here for a minute we go to the evidence of P.W.3. She would depose that the deceased is her cousin. Five years prior to she giving evidence in Court (she was examined on 8. 2000), the deceased, this witness and others went for work to the company, which is close to their house. P.W.1, who is the aunt of this witness accompanied her daughter upto the mill and then left. Next day morning, finding that the victim had not returned home they went in search of the victim. Now we c