JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner having been convicted u/s 451 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as the 'Code') and sentenced to imprisonment and fine by the courts below, has approached this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.10.1992 at about 3 P.M. while the victim lady. (P.W. 1) working as Anganwadi Worker was staying in the house of her helper, the accused-petitioner came and started talking to her in obscene language. Since the victim lady was sick, she kept mum and did not give any reply. It is alleged that the accused thereafter sat on the verandah of the house and sent the helper of the victim lady to bring liquor and after taking liquor, he stayed there. It is further alleged that in the night when the victim lady and her helper were sleeping inside the roll accused-petitioner entered into the room at about 1 O'clock in the night by opening the door and committed rape on her whereafter he left the place in the morning after giving threat to the victim lady not to disclose about the incident to anyone. On 21.10. 1992, the victim lady informed her husband about the incident when her husband had come to meet her. Thereafter it is stated that the matter was informed to the C.D.P.O., Narayanapatna in writing vide Ext. 1 ana the Panchayat Samiti Chairman, Narayanapatna was also informed about the incident. Since no action was taken, on 23.10.92 the victim lady submitted a written report to the police vide Ext. 2. On completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 451 and 376 of the Code. 3. The plea of the accused-petitioner was one of complete denial of the occurrence. The accused-petitioner in his statement stated that he complained against the victim lady to higher officers, as a result of which, a false case had been foisted against him. 4. 3. The plea of the accused-petitioner was one of complete denial of the occurrence. The accused-petitioner in his statement stated that he complained against the victim lady to higher officers, as a result of which, a false case had been foisted against him. 4. The prosecution to prove the charges has examined 13 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the victim lady, P.W. 4 is the helper who was sleeping inside the room along with the victim lady on the date of occurrence, P.W. 5 is the husband of the victim lady, P.W. 6 is the doctor who has examined the victim lady, P.W. 7 is the doctor who has examined the accused-petitioner and P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner assails the findings of the courts below on the following grounds: (a) inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., has not been explained; (b) the medical examination report submitted by P.W. 6 who examined the victim lady does not indicate any sign of rape; and (c) the prosecution case is highly improbable. 6. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction this Court ordinarily does not reassess the evidence. Since both the courts below have lost sight of certain important materials and there appears to be no discussion about the same, I feel it necessary to refer to the evidence on record. 7. So far as the first ground is concerned, it appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 that the alleged occurrence took place on 14.10.1992 and she informed her husband about the same on 21.10.92 when her husband came to village. P.W. 5 who is the husband of the victim lady has stated that he came to village on 17.10.92 and heard about the incident from P.W. 1,whereafter they went to the C.D.P.O and the local Panchayat Samiti Chairman and narrated about the incident. Since no action was taken by them till 19.10.92, the matter was reported at the police station on 20.10.92. Ext. 1, which is a report supposed to have been submitted by the victim to C.D.P.O. is dated 18.10.92 and the said report is signed by the victim lady. It is stated in the said report that the victim lady reported the incident to her husband on 17.10.92. In the F.I.R., the victim lady was stated that her husband came to village on 21.10.92. It is stated in the said report that the victim lady reported the incident to her husband on 17.10.92. In the F.I.R., the victim lady was stated that her husband came to village on 21.10.92. In view of the aforesaid evidence a doubt arises as to whether the husband of the victim lady came to village on 17.10.92 or 21.10.92. The C.D.P.O. who has been examined as P.W. 2 has stated that on 21.10.92 he received a written report from P.W. 1 about commission of rape on her, whereas the entry regarding the receipt of the report vide Ext. 1 was made on 23.10.92. The Panchayat Samiti Chairman who has been examined as P.W. 10 has stated that on 19.10.92, the husband of the victim lady complained before him that the accused-petitioner was quarrelling with P.W. 1. From the aforesaid materials, it appears that the C.D.P.O. (P.W. 2) was informed about the incident on 21.10.92, whereas from the evidence of P.W. 10 read with the evidence of P.W. 5, it appears that on 19.10.92 the husband of the victim lady was present in the village. If it is accepted that the husband of the victim lady had arrived in the village on 17.10.92, then the delay from 17.10.92 to 23.10.92 has not been properly explained. 8. So far as the second ground is concerned, 1 find no merit in the said submission as the alleged occurrence took place on 14.10.92 and the victim-lady was examined on 24.10.92 by P.W. 6. Undisputedly the victim lady had married two years before alleged occurrence and was habituated to sexual intercourse. The victim lady had taken bath and attended toilet in between the alleged date of occurrence and the date on which she was examined by P.W. 6. Thereafter, it is "Obvious that no sign of rape would be available during examination after lapse often days. 9. So far as the third ground is concerned, it is worthwhile to refer to the evidence of P. Ws. 1,4 and 13. P.W. 1 in her evidence has stated that on 14.10.92 she was sleeping inside the room with her helper P.W. 4. She has further stated that at about 1 0' clock in the night, the accused-petitioner who was sleeping on the verandah of the said house entered inside the room and committed rape on her. 1,4 and 13. P.W. 1 in her evidence has stated that on 14.10.92 she was sleeping inside the room with her helper P.W. 4. She has further stated that at about 1 0' clock in the night, the accused-petitioner who was sleeping on the verandah of the said house entered inside the room and committed rape on her. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it appears that she was sleeping on a rope cot and the helper was sleeping on the floor. The allegation is that the accused-petitioner entered inside the room at about 1 O'clock in the night, caught-hold of both the hands of the victim lady in one hand and in the other hand he undressed the victim lady. It is not understood as to why the victim lady did not shout or call the helper who was sleeping on the floor in the same room. The victim lady has further stated that she had tried to escape when the accused was undressing himself and the occurrence continued for almost half an hour and at the time of commission of rape, there was sound. She has further stated that she had put on bangles at the time of occurrence and those were not broken and she has stated not to have received any injury during the occurrence. She also has stated that after the occurrence, she covered her body with the wearing apparels and in the morning she put them on. The conduct of the victim lady creates doubt in mind as to whether such occurrence ever took place or whether she was a consenting party. If the victim lady had no consent, she could have shouted or called the helper P.W. 4 who was sleeping on the floor in the same room. Had any force been applied to her by the accused Petitioner for commission of the alleged rape, there could have been injuries on her person and she has specifically stated in her evidence that neither her bangles were broken, nor she sustained any injury. The very fact that immediately after the occurrence, she did not inform the helper sleeping on the floor and after commission of rape she covered her body with the wearing apparels and put them on in the morning only, do not appear to be normal conduct of a lady who had been subjected to rape. 10. The very fact that immediately after the occurrence, she did not inform the helper sleeping on the floor and after commission of rape she covered her body with the wearing apparels and put them on in the morning only, do not appear to be normal conduct of a lady who had been subjected to rape. 10. P.W. 4 is the helper who was sleeping inside the room, though she has been declared hostile, it is difficult to believe that an offence like rape was committed inside the room resulting in tussle and that the helper was sleeping till morning without knowing anything about the alleged occurrence. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has referred to a decision reported in Jagannivasan Vs. State of Kerala, in which the Apex Court in a case u/s 376, I.P.C. considered the conduct of the victim girl immediately after the occurrence and held that, it would be unsafe to rely on the word of the prosecutrix and hold that she was subjected to rape or that sexual intercourse was committed without her consent. In view of the discussions made above, it is unsafe to hold that P.W. 1 was subjected to rape or that the sexual intercourse was committed without her consent. It would rather be safe to lean in favour of the accused and accord him the benefit of doubt. 12. As a result, the revision succeeds and the Petitioner is acquitted of the charges. Final Result : Allowed