JUDGMENT V.D. Gyani, J 1. This is an appeal against the respondent's acquittal of charges under Ss. 306, 325 and 376, I.P.C., recorded by the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, in Session Trial No. 14 of 1984, vide judgment dated 30-10-1984. 2. Prosecution case in brief was that on 24-9-1983, by 5.00 p.m., the prosecutrix-Awantibai, a mother of two children, aged about 30 years, was cutting maize in her field, when the accused came there and drank away water from a ‘LOTA', which was kept by and meant for the prosecutrix. He took away her towel and snatched away her sickle and threw it aside. The prosecutrix started shouting when she was caught, but the accused gagged her mouth and dragged her to an adjoining field belonging to one Mangilal, where she was felled to the ground by the accused, who squat over her. As she tried to cry, the accused gave fist blows on her mouth, resulting injuries to her lips, gums and jaws. The accused also thrusted the towel in her mouth and committed rape on her at the point of knife. On Nanuram (P.W. 3), hearing her cries, rushed to the spot, the accused took to his heels, leaving the prosecutrix behind, who later on returned home. On return of her husband, she narrated the incident to him. Next day in the morning her husband Babulal (P.W. 4), accompanied by Bherulal (P.W. 6) and one Chunnilal, went to the police station Rampura, where first-information report, Ex. P/1, was lodged by him. Awantibai was sent for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Miss Leela Dabar (P.W. 2) on 25-9-1983. As per her report, Ex. P/2, following injuries were found on her person : 1. Ecchymosis 1/1-2" x 1/2" right side of cheek; 2. Linear abrasion below the nose, on the left side 1" x 1/4", 3. Swelling of lower lip, left side; 4. The upper incisor of right side and lower incisor are loose. 6. Nails abrasion of left side of breaste. Two in number. 7. Linear abrasion transversely about 1" on right side of breast. Stained part of her "GHAGRA" (petticoat) was seized and sent for Chemical examination, but no seminal stains were found on it. 3. The accused was arrested on 21-10-1984, vide arrest memo, Ex. P/10, and on medical examination, he was found to be fit for sexual intercourse as per report, Ex. Linear abrasion transversely about 1" on right side of breast. Stained part of her "GHAGRA" (petticoat) was seized and sent for Chemical examination, but no seminal stains were found on it. 3. The accused was arrested on 21-10-1984, vide arrest memo, Ex. P/10, and on medical examination, he was found to be fit for sexual intercourse as per report, Ex. P/3, given by Dr. Givindsingh (P.W. 5). 4. On completion of investigation the accused was prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. His defence was that of false implication. According to him Babulal. (P.W. 4), Anantibai's husband, owed him Rs.1300/-as price of fodder, which he did not pay and with the help of active connivance of Bherulal (P. W, 6), the Sarpanch of the village, he got him falsely implicated in this case. Prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to prove the charge. Accused also examined three witnesses in defence. The trial Court, however, held the prosecution witnesses as not reliable and prosecution case bas not proved, acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant State that the trial Court has over emphasised minor contradictions in the prosecution evidence and wrongly acquitted the accused, while Shri Asbok Shukla, appearing for the respondent submitted that the acquittal was proper and even if a different view of the evidence was possible, it was not open to this Court to set aside the acquittal, unless it was shown that the view taken by the trial Court was so unreasonable and perverse that no prudent man would take such a view of the evidence on record. 6. Dealing with her evidence the trial Court bas noted that so far as the first blow is concerned, according to the prosecutrix, it was given when she had already been dragged to the field of Mangilal, but as per first information report, Ex. P/1, this fist blow was given after she had been felled to the ground. The trial Court has disbelieved her evidence because of some variations in her statements and the first information-report, as regards the place of dealing of fist blow by the accused. Whether it was with a view to prevent her from crying or with a view to fell her down for committing rape? The trial Court has disbelieved her evidence because of some variations in her statements and the first information-report, as regards the place of dealing of fist blow by the accused. Whether it was with a view to prevent her from crying or with a view to fell her down for committing rape? Even on the question of this rape at the point of knife, the trial Court has observed that there is material difference in the version, as given by the prosecutrix, in the Court and as found in the first-information-report, Ex. PIL Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the trial Court bas dealt with the evidence of Awantibai in a perfunctory manner. The trial Court bas also noted that Awantibai in her evidence stated that the accused had thrusted a towel in her mouth. Nanuram (P. W. 3) stated that he removed the towel. This fact is missing from the first information-report, Ex. P/l. It bas been noted by the trial Court that Anwantibai, while returning home did not tell anyone, whom she met on the way, about the incident. According to the learned Judge, she should have narrated the incident, as Nanuram had already seen and known about it. 7. Noting the distance between the place of occurrance and the place where Nanuram was working in the adjoining field, trial Court bas ruled out the possibility of committing rape. In face of this fact, it bas also been observed that Nanuram on bearing the first cry itself could have rushed to the spot, but he did not. As he was having a sickle with him and as be was not aware that the accused was having a knife, he should have made an attempt to catch the accused, which he did not. His conduct, therefore, has been denounced as unnatural. It has been noted by the trial Court that according to the prosecutrix, she had sustained abrasions and scratches on her back and hips, as she was made to lie on the ground by the accused, but no such injuries have been found by Dr. Miss Dabar (P.W. 2). For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court sought for corroboration of Awantibai's testimony. 8. So far as witness Nanuram (P.W. 3) is concerned the trial Court appears to be of the view that there were numerous incosistencies in his statement. Miss Dabar (P.W. 2). For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court sought for corroboration of Awantibai's testimony. 8. So far as witness Nanuram (P.W. 3) is concerned the trial Court appears to be of the view that there were numerous incosistencies in his statement. At one stage he stated that he saw the accused dragging Awantibai towards the field of Mangilal and felling her there, but at later stage he changed his version saving that be saw her being pressed by the accused. Nanuram (P.W. 3) stated that he saw a sari lying about 2 or 3 hands away from Awantibai, although Awantibai had not stated that her Sari was removed. 9. learned Judge of the trial Court has disbelieved the story of rape for yet another reason. Dr. Miss Leela Dabar (P. W. 2), did not find and mentioned about any abrasion or scratches in her injury report, Ex. P/13, it is clear that the trial Court has not gone through the evidence of Dr. Miss Leela Dabar (P. W. 2), who has very clearly stated that she did not find any injury on the back or thighs of the prosecutrix. The first-information report is not only belated, but preceded by a meeting in the village, as admitted by the prosecution witnesses. 10. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that medical evidence is lacking, so also the Chemical Examiner's report does not support the prosecution case so far as rape is concerned No Seminal stains were found on the clothes on chemical examination, as per report, Ex. P/11. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1983 SC 911 ] which is substantially similar so far as facts are concerned, maintained the convictions of the accused, although there was no medical report at all. The trial Court also referred to the case of Sheikh Zakir (supra) and placing reliance on the same, has aquitted the accused. 12. Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent also referred to the element of village groupism and urged that it was all the doings of village Sarpanch, Bherulal (P.W. 6). He also pointed out that the first information report was quite belated. 13. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable particularly in face of the medical and the Chemical Examiner's report. He also pointed out that the first information report was quite belated. 13. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable particularly in face of the medical and the Chemical Examiner's report. The respondent's acquittal for the offence punishable u/s. 376 IPC, does not call for any interference. It is accordingly maintained. 14. Shri Pavnekar, learned Panel lawyer for the State submitted that the offence under S. 325 IPC is proved against the accused-respondent. He also pointed out that a specific charge under this head was framed by the trial Court. He referred to the injuries caused as a result of the fist blow dealt by the accused-respondent. 15. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that although there was a separate charge under S. 325 IPC, it should not be read in isolation. The trial Court bas noted that according to Awantibai, the prosecutrix, there was bleeding from her mouth and she also deposed that a towel had been thrusted. But there is no evidence produced by the prosecution about towel being stained with blood. Similarly, the trial Court has further noted that according to the lady doctor the injuries on the breasts could be self inflicted. The trial Court bas also noted that the possibility of Awantibai's teeth being shaky from before the Incident could Dot be ruled out particularly in view of the medical opinion given by Dr Miss Dabar (P.W. 2). In this connection it bas been observed by the trial Court that there should have been some internal injury to the lips, if the blow dealt were so forcible as to result in shaking of her teeth. In such a case injury on internal part of lips should have beer found but no such injury was found by the doctor. Swelling of gums could be attributed to many causes, as suggested to the witness in her cross-examination. It has also been observed by the trial Court that Babulal, husband of the prosecutrix, having dealt a blow to his wife Awantibai (as suggested by the defence), in the circumstarces of the case could not be ruled out. 16. Taking an overall view of the evidence on record, the findings arrived at by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable so as to call for any interference in this appeal against acquittal. 16. Taking an overall view of the evidence on record, the findings arrived at by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable so as to call for any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court is supported by the evidence on record. The respondent acquittal under Section 325 and 506, IPC deserves to be maintained and is accordingly maintained. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is accordingly-dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail-bonds.