THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED:17.03.2016, 16.03.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., AT CHIKKABALAPUR (SITTING AT CHINTAMANI) IN S.C.NO.110/2008-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S376,506 OF IPC.THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16.03.2016 and 17.03.2016, respectively passed in SC.No.110/2008 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur (Sitting at Chintamani), for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

Factual matrix of the case:

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police received an intimation to record the statement at the Government Hospital, Chintamani. He went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim. The said statement indicates that on 07.11.2007, at about 4:00 p.m., when the victim was cleaning utensils in front of her house, the accused called her and informed her that he wanted to talk to her. The victim refused to talk with him since nobody was there in the house. At that time, the appellant dragged her to the land situated behind her house and committed sexual intercourse with her. After the incident, he left the place by threatening her not to disclose the incident to anybody. However, after the incident, she informed her mother, her relatives and one Sri. Venkatesh - Advocate. All of them took the victim to the hospital and informed the jurisdictional – Police in that regard. Then, the Police have recorded the statement of the victim.

4. Based on the said statement, the respondent -Police registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-12, marked 14 documents as Ex-P.1 to P.14 and identified 09 material objects as MO-1 to MO-9. On the contrary, the defence examined 03 witnesses as DW-1 to DW-3 and marked 02 documents as Ex-D.1 and Ex-D.2. The Trial Court appreciated both oral and documentary evidence on record and convicted the appellant for the offences stated supra.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence is liable to be set aside.

8. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-1 contained several contradictions, omissions and improvements. However, these contradictions were not appreciated properly by the Trial Court.

9. It is further submitted that the Doctor/PW-7 who conducted the medical examination of the victim, submitted a report stating that no external injuries were found on the body of the victim. She further stated in her evidence that no seminal stains or spermatozoa were found on the clothes of P.W.-1. She stated that the victim had not been subjected to recent sexual intercourse. Such being the case, the conviction rendered by the Trial Court appears to be not only erroneous but also improper. Having said thus, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

10. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State vehemently submitted that the Trial Court has duly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence on record. The evidence of the prosecutrix indicated that she has consistently supported the case of the prosecution and the medical report corroborated the evidence of the victim. Merely because seminal stains or spermatozoa wa