MANGALURU: A good 34 years after allegedly raping a minor, the district and sessions Court, Karwar, has discharged the accused hailing from Bhatkal for want of evidence. In this case, neither was the charge framed nor the trial held. The accused was, however, discharged under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code.According to advocate Ravikiran Murudeshwar from Kundapur, the counsel for accused Maroof Ali Akbar , in addition to lack of sufficient ground to proceed further against the accused, the court also took judicial notice of the peculiar factual matrix of the case and discharged him.Interestingly, Maroof was remanded to judicial custody on July 25 this year after a relative, with whom he got into clash over property matter , apprised the police of the crime he allegedly committed in 1984.According to the complaint filed back then, the crime took place near Kamakshi Auto Service (petrol bunk) in Bhatkal on May 11, 1984. Around 9.30pm, the then 13-year-old girl was waiting for a Tanzeem tempo service . In Bhatkal, Muslim women generally prefer Tanzeem tempos, a free mode of transport system provided by the Islamic society. As she was waiting, Maroof, then 21 years old, a local, arrived in an auto rickshaw and offered her lift. Taking advantage of the situation, Maroof allegedly raped her. Even as a police complaint was filed against him and he was chargesheeted under IPC Section 376 (rape) read with IPC Section 511 (Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment), Maroof flew to Saudi Arabia, got married and has children.As the matter dried down, he started making silent visits to his hometown on vacations. His family members, relatives and acquaintances remained tight-lipped all the while.However, upon his arrival in July, he allegedly got into a fight with a relative over property. The miffed relative reminded the police of the 34-year-old case and got Maroof nabbed."The court did not summon even the victim. Even if it did, she might not remember details of the case as to what clothes she wore on the day of the incident, the exact place where the accused took her to and so on. Earlier too, she had told the court that she did not know the accused. Moreover, her husband may not even know about this case. Apparently, the court did not want to put her in trouble in the garb of giving her justice," an advocate associated with the case told TOI.According to the advocate Ravikiran, the victim, who is now 47 years old, has the option to reopen the case is she wishes to. However, this seems to be unlikely.