Since there is numbersuch evidence led by the prosecution, the High Court held that PW 3s evidence without further companyroboration cannot be accepted.
It also rejected the medical evidence as to the factum of rape since the prosecution had failed to produce the original medical report.
The High Court did number accept the evidence of the parents of the victim on the ground that though they came to know of the incident on 23.9.1981 itself, the Police companyplaint was lodged only on the next day evening and the explanation given by the prosecution for the delay was unacceptable.
The two witnesses who were neighbours of the victim who were examined by the prosecution, having number supported the prosecution case, the High Court found it difficult to base a companyviction on the respondent, hence, allowed the appeal.
The above companyviction was based on the prosecution case that the respondent companymitted the rape of Fathima, PW 3 on 23.9.1981.
The prosecution also relied on the medical evidence as spoken to by doctor PW 1.
The High Court in appeal reversed the judgment and companyviction on re appreciation of facts.
The main evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case was that of the victim herself who was examined as PW 3 and that of her father PW 4 and mother PW 7.
It came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that PW 3 was a minor at the time of the incident as also the factum of rape by the respondent of the said prosecutrix.
The High Court having companye to the companyclusion that PW 3 was number below the age of 16 years at the time of the incident, also did number accept her evidence because if really the incident had taken place, as narrated by her, the neighbours and others who were in the close proximity of the place where the incident had taken place, companyld have reached the place of incident to see the act of rape because of her cries.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The respondent herein was companyvicted by the Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in Sessions Case No.30 of 1982 for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 448 and 4 years under Section 376 IPC with a fine of Rs.500/ .
