P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS revision is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission in the following manner. ( 3 ) INFORMANT in S. T. No. 14/12 of 96 and S. T. No. 6/2 of 1997 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak is the petitioner challenging the order of acquittal dated 4-2-1999 recorded in favour of the opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 (accused in S. T. No. 14/12 of 1996) and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 (accused in S. T. No. 6/2 of 1997 ). Both the cases arising out of same occurrence but being committed at different time were disposed of by common trial and judgment. ( 4 ) THE allegation, in substance is that accused persons having dispute and enmity with P. W. No. 4, as alleged, came and ravished the informant at the dead of the night i. e. at about 1. 30 a. m. in the night of 23/24-4-1994 when as a lessee her husband was watering the crop and she was present there to assist him. It is alleged that the miscreants could restrained her husband (P. W. No. 3) from interfering by putting a sword on his neck. As alleged, the accused persons raped the informant one after the other and after damaging the house of P. W. No. 4 and taking some articles they decamped from the spot. The informant with her husband come across the river and lodged the report in the following day evening at 7 p. m. (7 p. m. on 24-4-1994) after searching and narrating the incident to P. W. No. 4 and being advised by him. Police conducted a routine investigation. The victim of rape was not only examined by the lady Doctor (P. W. No. 2) but also her wearing apparels as well as that of the accused persons were seized and sent to the Laboratory for chemical analysis and after completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 376/342/506/457/395, I. P. C. and during the course of trial charge was accordingly framed for the said offences. ( 5 ) PROSECUTION relied upon the evidence of the victim lady P. W. 1, her husband P. W. 3, as victim and witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 4 is a post-occurrence witness having no direct knowledge about the occurrence. ( 5 ) PROSECUTION relied upon the evidence of the victim lady P. W. 1, her husband P. W. 3, as victim and witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 4 is a post-occurrence witness having no direct knowledge about the occurrence. Prosecution relied upon various documents which included the F. I. R. (Ext. 2) medical report of the Doctor (Ext. 1) and the report of S. D. F. S. L. (Exts. 15 and 16 ). The accused relied upon and got exhibited the F. I. R. , charge-sheet and the injury report in Tihidi P. S. Case No. 35/94 vide Exts. A, B and C in support of their plea of enmity with P. W. No. 4 and the present case being a counter blast to the said case. ( 6 ) ILL feeling between the parties and pendency of the litigation is an admitted fact. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argues and that is supported by learned Standing Counsel (appearing for opposite party No. 1 State of Orissa) that an Indian woman particularly a rustic Hindu woman living in the Country side cannot conceive of making a false allegations of sexual assault on her at the cost of Social Stigma and the trial Court should have remained alive to that aspect while assessing the evidence on record. He further argues that evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 clinchingly prove the allegation of rape and the evidence of the Doctor i. e. P. W. No. 2 is of no help to the defence plea to get the benefit of doubt inasmuch as by the date of occurrence petitioner being a married lady was in her late forties. He further argues that minor discrepancies were much highlighted by the trial Court in support of the order of acquittal. Accordingly, petitioner prays to set aside the order of acquittal and to send back the record to the trial Court with a direction to reappreciate the evidence in proper manner and to dispose of the case in accordance with law. ( 8 ) ACCUSED/opposite party members are represented by two sets of counsel but common argument is advanced. They argue that the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is restricted and limited to find out if the order of acquittal suffers from any illegality or perversity. ( 8 ) ACCUSED/opposite party members are represented by two sets of counsel but common argument is advanced. They argue that the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is restricted and limited to find out if the order of acquittal suffers from any illegality or perversity. If that be not so, then the revisional Court should not interfere with the finding on facts. They further argue that on appreciation of evidence if the revisional Court finds that the view taken by the trial Court is not incorrect or otherwise illegal or perverse then the finding on fact should not be disturbed simply because another view is possible from such evidence. They further argue that Exts. A, B and C disclose relating to the incident on 24th morning itself and the conduct of P. Ws. 1 and 3 in lodging the F. I. R. at a belated stage after searching, locating and consulting P. W. No. 4 goes to demolish genuineness and truthfulness in that allegation. Keeping in view the manner in which the allegation has been made and the contradictions thereof the principle which is universal about a woman not to bring blamish of rape on her cannot be applied to this case. They further argue that evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 is not only stigmatised with interestedness but also that looses creditworthiness because of contradictory evidence relating to the actual participants in the occurrence of rape and the subsequent development in the story made by her at the time of trial. Apart from that, they argue, the medical report and evidence of the Doctor (P. W. 2) adds to the falsity in the aforesaid allegation of rape. Accordingly, the opposite party argue to maintain the order of acquittal. ( 9 ) PETITIONER does not advance any argument challenging the order of acquittal of the opposite parties 2 to 6 for the other charges i. e. , the offences under Sections 342/506/457 and 395, I. P. C. ( 10 ) THE trial Court acquitted the accused persons on the following principal grounds :- (1) There was considerable delay in lodging the F. I. R. inasmuch as the occurrence took place at about 1. 30 a. m. in the night between 23rd/24th April, 1994 but the F. I. R. was lodged at 7 p. m. on 24-4-1994. 30 a. m. in the night between 23rd/24th April, 1994 but the F. I. R. was lodged at 7 p. m. on 24-4-1994. Besides that the F. I. R. was received in the Court of S. D. J. M. On 26-4-1994. So far as the delay in lodging the F. I. R. is concerned, in that respect no proper explanation is there from the side of prosecution. On the other hand admittedly P. Ws. 1 and 3 consulted P. W. No. 4, who is in litigating terms with accused persons, and on his advice only lodged the report. Probability of fabricating a false case cannot be ruled out. (2) P. Ws. 1 and 3 not only contradicted with the F. I. R. regarding the manner in which the whole occurrence took place but also developed the story alleging accused Ganesh restraining P. W. No. 3 by putting the sword on his neck. (3) The allegations of rape is not supported by the medical report and the evidence of P. W. No. 2 (Doctor ). (4) Absence or mark of violence at the spot during the spot visit by the Investigating Officer. ( 11 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel at length in the aforesaid manner and perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the evidence was not only properly assessed but also correctly considered to record the order of acquittal. It may be noted that during medical examination of P. W. No. 1 on 25-4-1994, the Doctor (P. W. No. 2) did not find dried semen or similar substance in her (P. W. No. 1's) private parts, there was no signs of any seminal fluid inside the vaginal wall, no other foreign body or loose pubic hair was found and above all, there was neither any injury nor pain besides absence of any proof of recent sexual intercourse. That falsifies the allegation of gang rape where allegedly four young persons successfully committed forcible sexual intercourse against the will of P. W. No. 1. Simply because the allegation of rape was made by a married woman in her late forties it cannot be accepted as gospel truth in the absence of the surrounding circumstances and evidence thereof lending corroborative support to give credibility to such an allegation. On perusal of the evidence of P. Ws. Simply because the allegation of rape was made by a married woman in her late forties it cannot be accepted as gospel truth in the absence of the surrounding circumstances and evidence thereof lending corroborative support to give credibility to such an allegation. On perusal of the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 read with the evidence of P. W. 2, this Court finds that the allegations of rape is not credible. Therefore, in all fairness opposite parties 2 to 6 are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Under such circumstances, the impugned order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.