JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Order of acquittal passed on 30th September, 1989 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No.4/7 of 1989 is under challenge. 2. Accused faced his trial for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 30th August, 1988 in morn¬ing hours at about 6.00 A.M., when the victim girl had gone to ease on an open field locally known as ‘Amguda’, the accused, a co-villager, met her and sought her consent for cohabitation and when she refused, he lifted her to a distance and committed rape on her. According to the prosecution, soon after the occurrence of rape, the victim girl (P.W.1) reported the fact to Budhuram (P.W.9), who was working in a nearby field and that he escorted her to her house. On reaching her house, P.W.1 narrated the incident to her parents, then police was intimated and she was examined by the lady doctor (P.W.4) in District Headquarters Hospital at Sundergarh. When the lady doctor (P.W.4) examined the victim girl on the date of occurrence, but recorded the finding of no sign of rape or violence on her private part or body. Not being satisfied with that report, on police requisition P.W.1 was further examined on 3.9.1988 by P.W.5, Asst. Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Burla Medical College. P.W.6, Assistant Surgeon of Talpatia P.H.C., examined the accused on 5.9.1988 on police requisition and found no sign of recent sexual intercourse but the accused being capable of sexual intercourse. 3. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session and on being transferred, the Asst. Sessions Judge took up the trial after framing charge for offence under Section 376, I.P.C. Prose¬cution relied on the evidence of 10 witnesses. Amongst them, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are respectively mother and father of P.W. No.1, P.W. No.7 is a Headmaster. He produced records in proof of age of P.W. No.1 and P.W. No.8 is a witness to seizure of wearing appar¬el of P.W. No.1. P.W. No.10 was the Investigating Officer. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court enter¬tained doubt on the veracity of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and acquitted the accused inter alia on the grounds that P.W. No.4 having exam¬ined P.W. No.1 on 30.8.1988, did not find any sign or symptom of rape. P.W. No.10 was the Investigating Officer. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court enter¬tained doubt on the veracity of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and acquitted the accused inter alia on the grounds that P.W. No.4 having exam¬ined P.W. No.1 on 30.8.1988, did not find any sign or symptom of rape. P.W. No.9 did not corroborate the evidence of P.W. No.1 and her parents that P.W. No.1 narrated before him about the incident of rape and that he escorted her to the house. Trial Court also took note of the improbable factor, inasmuch as, the place of occurrence was abut 150 mitres from the village basti and any sound produced from the spot is audible to the villagers. In that respect, evidence of P.W.1 that she repeatedly shouted for help has rendered the prosecution case improbable, inasmuch as, neither P.W. No.9 nor any of the villagers heard her shout. The trial Court also found that evidence of the witnesses indicate that the place of alleged sexual intercourse is visible to human dwelling and therefore, the fact of rape if committed that could not have gone unnoticed. Trial Court did not put much emphasis on the evidence of P.W. No.5 in respect of the injury in scapula region in view of the fact that on examination private parts of the victim did not exclusively or conclusively make out a case of sexual violence on P.W.1. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court entertained doubt on truthfulness of the prosecution case and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Learned Addl. Government Advocate is unable to counter the reasons discussed by the trial Court in support of the impugned judgment. When the view taken by the trial Court does not suffer from illegality and perversity, it is not proper for the appellate authority to interfere with the same. 4. Under the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.