B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in respect of the charge under S. 376 of the I. P. C. while convicting the accused respondent under S. 354 of the I. P. C. The respondent, it was alleged, forcibly committed rape on the victim girl (P. W. 6), then aged about nine years, on Sept. 5, 1980, while she was watching the paddy field, by going there, making her naked and then forcibly penetrating his Penn inside her vagina and committing sexual intercourse against her will. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court held that the charge of rape had not been established, but the respondent could be held guilty for outraging the modesty of P. W. 6. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. In an appeal against acquittal, it is to be seen as to whether the finding recorded by the trial court is reasonably possible. Even if another view can be taken, no interference is called for. ( 3 ) THE facts of the prosecution case, the plea of the defence and the prosecution evidence have been set out in the judgment of the trial court. The delay in lodging the first information report which had been done four days after the occurrence had satisfactorily been explained, as held by the trial court. Taking into consideration the improbabilities in the story presented by P. W. 6 in her evidence, the fact that the sole witness to the occurrence (P. W. 7), who was said to be nearby, did not support the evidence of P. W. 6 for which she was put leading questions under S. 154 of the Evidence Act and the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 5) who had noticed no injury on the person of the victim or on the person of the respondent, the trial court held that the charge of rape had not been established. ( 4 ) ABSENCE of injuries on the person of the aggressor or the aggressed may not be a circumstance in each case to demolish a theory of rape. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, P. W. 6 was aged only about nine years when she was allegedly raped. ( 4 ) ABSENCE of injuries on the person of the aggressor or the aggressed may not be a circumstance in each case to demolish a theory of rape. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, P. W. 6 was aged only about nine years when she was allegedly raped. She had asserted that the respondent had penetrated his penis into her vagina with force. Evidence had been led to show that after the act, some white substance had been washed out giving an indication that it was a case of complete sexual intercourse and there had been ejaculation. In such state of affairs, it could not be that the victim girl would have no injury on her person and in particular, on her vagina and its surroundings. The doctor had examined her on Sept. 10, 1980. There was absence of mark of violence on her body and there had been no blood or seminal fluid stain on any of her clothings. No seminal stain on the external genital and thigh, no mark of dried up blood on the genital organ, no bruise or laceration on external genital and no rupture or laceration had been noticed on her person. Her hymen was intact and the vaginal secretion did not show any spermatozoa on miscroscopic examination. On Sept. 14, 1980, the same doctor had examined the respondent and nothing was noticed which could be a circumstance supporting a case of rape. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons recorded in the body of the judgment and particularly because of absence of injuries on the person of the victim, the trial court has concluded that the story presented by P. W. 6 could not be accepted, but that the first part of the occurrence that the respondent went to her and made her naked was acceptable. It would appear to me that the view taken by the trial court that the charge of rape had not been established is a reasonable and probable one and cannot be dislodged in an appeal against acquittal. ( 6 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.