LAW FOR ALL

There was no sexual intercourse between the appellant and the victim. The prosecution has not been able to establish any link between the commission of the alleged offence and the appellant. 4. The case of the prosecution is based upon the sole testimony of the victim. All these circumstances, examined cumulatively, entitle the accused for an order of acquittal. 5. Lastly, the punishment awarded to the accused is too harsh.-Once the Trial Court has ignored material piece of evidence and failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its correct perspective, particularly when the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, then it would amount to failure of justice. - the Trial Court attempted to create a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution on the basis of the statement of PW3, that he does not know what PW2 narrated to PW1, when he made inquiries. We do not think that this was a proper way to appreciate the evidence on record.-The statement of a witness must be read in its entirety. Reading a line out of context is not an accepted canon of appreciation of evidence.-the course of appreciation of evidence and application of law adopted by the Trial Court was not proper. It was expected of the Trial Court to examine the cumulative effect of the complete evidence on record and case of the prosecution in its entirety.- In our considered opinion, the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record cumulatively and in its correct perspective by ignoring the material piece of evidence and improper appreciation of evidence. It has recorded findings which are on the face of it unsustainable. This error was rightly corrected by the High Court, and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the High Court. 43. We find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.