JUDGMENT P.K.PATRA, J. — The appellants Mukte Sa and Ambika Kishan alias Thoro Kishan have been convicted under Secs. 376 (2)(g)/34, I.P.C. by Sri P.N.Patnaik, Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No. 120/92 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo R.I. for two years more. 2. The prosecution case runs as follows : On 30.3.1992 the prosecutrix (P.W.1) who was an Anganwadi worker, was returning from village Subdega to her village Rasraj¬pur in a bus and she got down from the bus at village Katnidiha and after taking over charge of her registers etc. from one Basanti whom she had handed over charge, for a Refresher Course Training while proceeding alone in the jungle road between Barmal and Rasrajpur, at about 3.00 P.M. the appellants overpowered her and committed rape on her one after another by gagging her mouth with a cloth. After satisfying their lust, the appellants left the prosecutrix and went inside the forest and the prosecutrix went to her village. After washing herself and taking rest for a while, she reported the occurrence to her aunt (P.W.3) who in turn reported the occurrence to the uncle and brother of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix accompanied by her relations went to the Sadar P.S., Sundargarh and orally reported the occurrence at 8.30 P.M. on the same day to the I.I.C. of the P.S. (P.W.4) who reduced the same to writing and registered the case and took up investigation. During investigation, P.W.4 examined the prosecu¬trix and other witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of the prosecutrix, visited the spot during the same night, returned back due to the failure of the prosecutrix to locate the spot, revisited the spot on the next morning and seized some dry leaves and twigs from the spot. On 2.4.1992 he arrested the appellant Thoro alias Ambika Kishan, seized his wearing apparels. He also arrested the appellant Mukte Sa on the same day and seized his wearing apparels. He sent the prosecutrix and the appellants for medical examination in the District Headquarter Hospital, Sundar¬garh. After completion of investigation P.W.4 submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants who stood their trial. 3. He also arrested the appellant Mukte Sa on the same day and seized his wearing apparels. He sent the prosecutrix and the appellants for medical examination in the District Headquarter Hospital, Sundar¬garh. After completion of investigation P.W.4 submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants who stood their trial. 3. The defence plea is that the prosecutrix had consented for sexual intercourse but when three boys saw the same and reported to the family members of the prosecutrix she had to report the matter to the police. 4. In order to bring home the charge against the appellants, prosecution has examination four P.Ws. in all. Out of them P.W.1 is the prosecutrix, P.W.2 is the medical officer who examined the prosecutrix, P.W.3 is the aunt of the prosecutrix and P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer. The defence has examined two witnesses in support of its case. Besides, one Court witness (C.W.1) has been examined. He was the J.M.F.C., Sundargarh who recorded the statements of two witnesses under Section 164, Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the sole testi¬mony of the prosecutrix and held the appellants guilty of the charge and convicted them and passed the sentence as stated above. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence correctly and has come to the erroneous conclusion that the appellants were guilty of the charge levelled against them. The learned Government Counsel supported the impugned judgment. Both the contentions require careful consideration. 6. The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has stated that she was 22 years old on the date of her deposition, i.e., 4.11.1992. She was working as an Anganwadi worker (Integrated Child Development Scheme). She returned from the I.C.D.S. office, Subdega by bus and got down at Katnidihi and went to the house of Padmabati Bhainsal to take charge from her. It appears from the case-diary that P.W.1 had handed over charge to Padmabati and had been to Barpali in the district of Sambalpur to attend the Anganwadi Refresher Course Training from 11.3.1992 to 28.3.1992 and she returned to her house on 29.3.1992. On the same day at 9.00 A.M. she proceeded to Subdega by bus and submitted her joining report in the office of C.D.P.O., Subdega under Talsara P.S. and after submitting her joining report she returned in a bus and got down at Katnidihi and after collecting her Registers etc. On the same day at 9.00 A.M. she proceeded to Subdega by bus and submitted her joining report in the office of C.D.P.O., Subdega under Talsara P.S. and after submitting her joining report she returned in a bus and got down at Katnidihi and after collecting her Registers etc. from Padmabati she returned to her house alone and on her way to her village the alleged occurrence took place in the Reserve Forest in between the villages of Bada¬mala and Rasrajpur. The Medical Officer (P.W.2) has stated that for determination of the age of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) ossifica¬tion test was suggested and the ossification test report dated 2.4.1992 reveals that P.W.1 was aged more than 18 years. Thus it is evident from the statement of prosecutrix (P.W.1) and the medical evidence on record that the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was aged more than 18 years. The prosecutrix (P.W. 1) has stated that she had known both the appellants prior to this occurrence since they were residents of a nearby village. Therefore, it is to be considered whether the appellants had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by application of force without her consent or wheth¬er the prosecutrix had consented for sexual intercourse with the appellants. 7. The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has stated that she had walked a distance about 2 Kms. from village Badamal on the forest road and both the appellants who had concealed their presence, came out from behind of a tree and appellant Thoro Kishan caught hold of her right hand and wanted her to give her consent for sexual intercourse and when she protested, the other appellant caught hold of her other hand and both the appellants dragged her to¬wards a nala and she shouted for help. She has further stated that the appellant Thoro gagged her mouth with a napkin and the appellant Mukte Sa raised both her legs as a result of which she fell down on the ground and while appellant Thoro stood on both of her hands, appellants Mukte committed rape on her after remov¬ing her saree, blouse and chadi and that after appellant Mukte satisfied his lust, he got up and stood on the hands of the prosecutrix and then appellant Thoro committed rape on her. She has further stated that after satisfying his lust, appellant Thoro got up and both the appellants left the spot and proceeded inside the jungle and she (P.W.1) put on her apparels and went to her house. After washing her legs and mouth, she took rest for some time and thereafter went to the house of her aunt (P.W.3) and reported the occurrence and P.W.3 reported the matter to the uncle and brother of the prosecutrix and thereafter P.W.1 and others proceeded to the police station to lodged the report. P.W.1 has denied to have given her consent for sexual intercourse with the appellants. In the F.I.R., Ext.1 she has stated that due to the forcible rape committed on her by the appellants she sustained severe pain on her vagina, back and left elbow. But in her statement in Court, P.W.1 has not stated the same. On the contrary she has stated that she was raped on a sandy place. In her statement in cross-examination P.W.1 has stated that she sustained abrasion on her left elbow joint and pain on her but¬tock which she disclosed to the medical officer at the time of her medical examination. The medical officer (P.W.2) who examined the P.W.1 and submitted the report Ext.2., has not corroborated the statement of P.W.1 He has stated that there was no foreign substance either inside the private part or on her public hairs. The vaginal swab was collected and examined by the Specialist and the report of the Specialist reveals that no spermatozoa was detected. The clothes put on by P.W.1 at the time of examination did not show the presence of blood. There was no mark of violence on the breast, face, lower part of abdomen, limbs or back. The public hairs were not matted. There was no semenal stains present either on the external genitals or thighs. On examination of the vagina it was found that the hymen was ruptured with two small lateral tears present. The edges were congested and swollen but did not bleed on touch and the hymen admits two fingers which was stained with slight amount of dark coloured blood. The age of the injury on the hymen was within two days of examination and the vagina was congested. From the medical evidence on record it is clear that the prosecutrix had not sustained any injury on her person. The age of the injury on the hymen was within two days of examination and the vagina was congested. From the medical evidence on record it is clear that the prosecutrix had not sustained any injury on her person. There was no bleeding. The medical evidence on record contradicts the statement of P.W.1 that she had not been sexually assaulted prior to this occurrence. That apart, the conduct of the prosecutrix after the sexual assault points towards her consent to the sexual intercourse by the appellants. It cannot be believed for a moment that the appellants stood on both the hands of the prosecutrix while the sexual assault was going on and that she did not sustain any injury on her hands, vagina, breast, faces, buttocks and back; although she has alleged that she was forcibly thrown on the ground by pulling her legs. As stated by P.W.1, she put on her wearing apparels after the sexual assault and proceeded to her village without reporting the occurrence to anybody on the way or without returning to village Badamal to report the occurrence to Padmabati. Instead she has stated to have reached her house, washed her feet and mouth and took rest for some time after which she went to the house of her aunt (P.W.3) and reported the occurrence. The appellants have taken the plea that they had sexual intercourse with the consent of the prosecu¬trix but since three boys witnessed the sexual assault on the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix was forced to report against them. It transpires from the statement of D.Ws.1 and 2 that while they along with a child aged about 7 years were proceeding inside the forest they witnessed the sexual assault on the prosecutrix and after returning to the village they reported the occurrence to the family members of the prosecutrix. It is there in the evidence of P.W.3 that the mother of P.W.1 is staying with her in one house. But strangely enough, P.W.1 did not report the occurrence to her mother and preferred to go to the house of her aunt (P.W.3) to report the occurrence. The possibility of P.W.1 reporting the occurrence to her aunt after D.Ws.1 & 2 reported the matter in the house of P.W.1, cannot be completely ruled out. But strangely enough, P.W.1 did not report the occurrence to her mother and preferred to go to the house of her aunt (P.W.3) to report the occurrence. The possibility of P.W.1 reporting the occurrence to her aunt after D.Ws.1 & 2 reported the matter in the house of P.W.1, cannot be completely ruled out. The prosecu¬trix (P.W.1) has stated to have known one of the three boys, viz., Bailochan (D.W.1), whom she saw in the forest with two other boys when the appellants were dragging her and she cried for help but according to her the three boys fled away. If this statement of P.W.1 is believed to be true, in the normal course of conduct, she should have run towards those three boys for help and could have raised hullah in a loud voice, but there is no evidence on record that P.W.1 either tried to run away or struggled to escape from the clutches of the appellants. The statement of the prose¬cutrix (P.W.1) that one of the appellants was standing on both her hands while the other was committing rape on her, does not appear to be credible, inasmuch as had this been so, the bangles of the prosecutrix would have broken and she would have sustained injuries on her wrists and palms. The appellants could not have taken off the wearing apparels, viz., saree, saya and chadi of the prosecutrix so easily as stated by P.W.1, had P.W.1 resisted and struggled to escape. It is true that absence of any injury on the person of the victim, cannot rule out the possibility of rape on the victim. But in the present case, the facts and circum¬stances and the materials on record as discussed above, would clearly lead to the inevitable conclusion that the prosecutrix had consented to the sexual intercourse by the appellants and that she was not raped by the appellants. 8. For the reasons discussed above, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge that the appellants forcibly raped the prosecutrix without her consent, is found to be errone¬ous and it cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside. As such the appellants cannot be held guilty of the charge under Sections 376(2)(g)/34, I.P.C. and they will be entitled to acquittal. 9. As such the appellants cannot be held guilty of the charge under Sections 376(2)(g)/34, I.P.C. and they will be entitled to acquittal. 9. In the result, the conviction of both the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g)/34, I.P.C. and the sentences passed against the appellants are set aside and they the acquitted of the charge. They be released from custody forthwith if their detention is not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.