JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard Learned Addl. Government Advocate and Learned Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal delivered by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1989 (S.C. 164/89 GDC). 2. Trial Court has noted the fact in paragraph-2 of the impugned judgment. Factual accuracy thereof is not disputed at the Bar. According to that the victim girl, a minor aged about 5 years, allegedly suffer sexual assault on 10.6.1989 at about 2.00 P.M. at the hands of the accused-respondent, who was then a boy aged about 18 to 19 years. According to the prosecution, the girl was playing outside and some unknown boy came and told her that accused had called her. When the victim girl went to the house of the accused, which was two houses apart, she was escorted by the accused to the cattle-shed and there allegedly the accused committed rape on her resulting bleeding from her private parts. On her way back to the house, she narrated the incident to P. Ws.3 and 4 and also to her grandfather (P.W. No. 2) and her mother in the house. Since father of the victim was not present in the house, except taking her to the doctor, P.W. 6 for treatment, no further action was taken by the informant, P.W. No. 2 on 10.6.1989. On arrival of his son, P.W. 2 made consultation with him and on the following day i.e.11.06.1989 at about 8.30 A.M. went and lodged the First Information Report at Bhanjanagar Police Station. After receipt of that information, the case for the offence u/s 376, I.P.C. was registered, the victim was sent to the medical on police requisition and further investigation was taken up. In course of that investigation, accused was found absconding from his house and on 27.6.1989 he (the accused) surrendered in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar. He was taken to the police custody for examination medically. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session and the accused faced the trial for the offence u/s 376, I.P.C. Accused took plea of complete denial with the assertion that because of the quarrel between him and the informant, such a false case has been foisted against him. 3. To substantiate the change, prosecution relied on the evidence of seven witnesses. 3. To substantiate the change, prosecution relied on the evidence of seven witnesses. Amongst them, P.W. No. 1 is the victim girl and P.W. No. 6 is the doctor, who granted the Injury Certificate on police requisition. In her evidence, while making statement about the alleged sexual assault on her by the accused, P.W. 1 admitted in cross-examination that the statements which she made to the police as well as in Court were as per the instruction of her grandfather, whom she addresses as father. The Doctor, P.W. No. 6, in his deposition did not mention anything about the treatment given by him to P.W. No. 1 on 10.06.1989. He however, proved the Injury Certificate, Ext.3, on the basis of the examination made on 11.06.1989. The evidence in examination-in-chief does not reveal that the doctor gave opinion of possibility of the injuries because of sexual cohabitation or commission of rape. The Trial Court, on assessment of evidence of P. Ws. 1, 6 and P. Ws. 2 to 4 found the deposition of P.W. 1 to be not in conformity with her 164 Code of Criminal Procedure statement as per the contradictions confronted to her. Trial Court also found that factum of tutoring being admitted by her, as per the ratio in the case of Bahadul alias Ghanshyam Padhan Vs. State of Orissa, and Mahendra Kumar Muduli v. State of Orissa, reported in 1989 (3) Crime 56. Credibility of P.W. No. 1 was shaken. Therefore, the assertion of P. Ws. 2 to 4 about the narration of events to them by P.W. No. 1 does not inspire confidence.Recording such finding, the Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case and granted benefit of doubt to the accused-Appellant. 4. In course of submission, Learned Addl. Government Advocate argues that corroboration of evidence of P.W. No. 1 by P. Ws. 2 to 4 strengthens truth in the evidence of P.W. No. 1 and that could not have been ignored by the Trial Court. That argument has no merit, inasmuch as, none of P. Ws. 2 to 4 was eye-witness to the occurrence. Their statements are relating to the post occurrence conduct to P.W. No. 1. 2 to 4 strengthens truth in the evidence of P.W. No. 1 and that could not have been ignored by the Trial Court. That argument has no merit, inasmuch as, none of P. Ws. 2 to 4 was eye-witness to the occurrence. Their statements are relating to the post occurrence conduct to P.W. No. 1. When P.W. No. 1 herself had admitted that she made statement to the police as well as to the Court as per the instruction from P.W. No. 2, therefore, the corroboration depended upon by the prosecution is of no assistance to enhance credibility of P.W. 1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate is unable to explain as to why P.W. No. 6 did not state in his evidence about the physical condition of the victim girl and about the injuries he found on 10.6.1989, when he had the occasion to examine her before the police requisition. Learned Addl. Government Advocate is also unable to explain as to for what reason no appropriate evidence was brought on record from the mouth of P.W. No. 6, if the injuries found on P.W. No. 1 were possible due to sexual assault as alleged by P.W. 1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate does not challenge the impugned judgment on any other ground. Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, submission and discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal, which was recorded in favour of the accused by granting him the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the Government Appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed