JUDGMENT

DEBABRATA DASH, J.

1. The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayagade in S.C. No. 312 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 376, IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 2-5-1994 around 10.00 a.m. the victim (P.W.4) said to be minor then had been to the cultivable land. It is stated that the respondent all of a sudden caught hold of her from behind; made her lie on the ground and raped her. The respondent after commission of rape upon the victim threatened her with dire consequences in case of disclosure of same before others. It is also stated that the victim sustained injuries on different parts of her body. However, out of fear she did not disclose the fact to her parents and so informed to her friend, namely, Kunda keeping in mind that Kunda would inform her parents. But when she ascertained Kunda to have maintained silence, she disclosed the incident before her relation Radha (P.W. 3), who in turn told the same to the parents of the victim.

On 13-5-1994 written F.I.R. was lodged at Kashipur Police Station. This necessiated registration of the case and commencement of the investigation. In course of the investigation, victim and other witnesses were examined; both victim and the respondent were also put to medical test and necessary seizure of their wearing apparels were made followed by their chemical examination. On completion of investigation charge-sheet having been submitted, the respondent faced trial for commission of offence under section 376, IPC.

3. The case of the defence is that of complete denial. It is further stated that both are co-villagers and friends, and there was a proposal for their marriage, when parents stood on the way of its materialisation. It is also stated that as there was prior enmity between the two families, this case has been foisted bearing grudge on account of that.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the respondent has altogether examined fourteen witnesses, while proving the FIR, seizure lists, medical report, report of the chemical examiner etc.

The defence has examined none.

5. The victim has been examined as P.W. 4 and P.W. 2 is her father, whereas P.W. 6 is her mother. The sister of P.W. 2 has come to the dock as P.W. 1. One of the relations of the victim has been examined as P.W.3. The witnesses to the seizure are P.Ws. 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12. The doctor has appeared as P.W. 10. P.Ws. 13 and 14 are the Investigating Officers.

6. The trial Court upon analysis of the evidence and upon their appreciation, has found the evidence of P.W. 4 to be unworthy of credence, and therefore has declined to fasten the guilt upon the respondent on the basis of her solitary testimony. It has been next found out that there remains no such corroboration on material particulars to the evidence of P.W. 4. The trial Court has found the age of the victim to be more than 16 years. In view of all these, the respondent has been acquitted of the charge.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that taking into account the rural area from which the P.W. 4 hails and all other circumstances, there was no justification on the part of the trial Court to stamp the evidence of P.W. 4 as unworthy of credence. According to him, the delayed disclosure, non-existence of injuries on the person of the P.W. 4 as also the respondent, ought not to have been taken as adverse circumstance telling upon the evidence of P.W. 4. He further contends that P.W. 4 has desposed in a very natural manner, when also there was no reason on her part to falsely implicate the respondent. Therefore, he urges that it is a fit case for interference with the order of acquittal.

Learned counsel for the respondent supports the finding of the trial Court. According to him, the same is based upon just and proper appreciation of the evidence as is required to be done in view of the facts and circumstances which have emanated from