JUDGMENT Mst. Sharda Bai has filed this revision against the acquittal of non-applicant No.2 in a case u/s. 376 of the I.P.C. Prosecution case, in brief, is that according to the petitioner the rape was committed with her on 6.8.86 at about 1 P.M. in a field situated at a distance of a kilometer from the village Mudol, District Guna. The F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecutrix along-with her husband Vishnu on 8.8.86. Thus, the FIR was lodged after two days of the alleged incident. The non-petitioner No.2 was tried for an offence u/s. 376 of the I.P.C. The Sessions Judge found the offence not proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, recorded a finding of acquittal. The only prosecution witnesses in this case are the prosecutrix herself and her husband Vishnu. According to the prosecution story itself, the husband was not present at the time of occurrence. The prosecutrix was medically examined. No evidence of rape was found. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecutrix herself appears to be a consenting party. She did not resist the rape being committed on her. There were no bruise or other such marks on her body to show that she resisted the offence being committed. Clothes of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical examinations. The Chemical Examiner's report confirms the presence of Seminal Stains and Human Spermatozoa on article- B. This does not mean that the lady was not a consenting party. I have gone through the judgment. The prosecutrix was lying quietly all through on the ground, her hands were free and even then she did not try to remove the cloth with which her mouth was gagged. She did not raise an alarm and did not resist. All this shows that the inference drawn by the Sessions Judge is sustainable. In any case, the finding arrived at by the Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse or a finding which could not have been arrived at. The result is that there is no occasion for interfering with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. She bad the advantage of seeing witnesses examined before her and watching their demeanour. The finding cannot be said to be perverse with the result that the revision has no force. Dismissed It has been argued before me that the statement of prosecutrix has wrongly been disbelieved by the trial Judge. She bad the advantage of seeing witnesses examined before her and watching their demeanour. The finding cannot be said to be perverse with the result that the revision has no force. Dismissed It has been argued before me that the statement of prosecutrix has wrongly been disbelieved by the trial Judge. In this case the real evidence consists of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix which remains unsupported by any evidence whal<;oever. The accused has given an acceptable reason for his being implicated in this case. Once the trial Court has recorded a finding of acquittal then the High Court has to proceed with great caution, particularly, in such cases which essentially depend only on uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. The revision fails and is rejected.