JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.12.1998 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M. Ganjam, Berhampur in Sessions Case No.13 of 1988 (S.T. 28/88) GDC) acquitting the accused-Respondent of the of¬fence under Section 376 of I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the prosecution case is that on 13.10.1987 at about 3.30 P.M. while P.W.3, the victim was easing herself near Patua Nala of her village Chikitigarh, the accused-Respondent came near her, caught hold of her right hand, laid her down on the ground and committed sexual intercourse on her against her will and without her consent. Hearing hullah raised by the alleged victim, her maternal uncle and aunt Ratna and Basanti by name arrived at the spot, and seeing them while the accused-Respondent was taking to his heels, Ratna caught hold of him. On being asked, the accused-Respondent denied to have com¬mitted any offence, but the victim narrated the entire incident before Ratna and his wife, crying. The matter was brought to the notice of the mother of the victim in absence of her father, who had been to Berhampur to sell Khaja etc. On the next day, on the arrival of her father the victim as well as her mother narrated the incident to him. On the same day the victim, her father and her paternal uncle went to Chikiti Out-Post where the victim disclosed the incident in detail to the A.S.I. in-charge of the Out-Post, who reduced the same into writing and forwarded it to the O.I.C. of Nuagaon Police Station for registration and inves¬tigated into the case. In course of investigation, he visited the spot and examined some witnesses. As the allegation contained in the F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case, the O.I.C. registered the case and took charge of the investigation from the A.S.I. In course of investigation, he arrested the accused-Respondent and sent him as well as the victim to the hospital for their medical examination, seized the wearing apparels of both the accused-Respondent and the victim, sent the same for chemical examination and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case against the accused-Respondent, submitted Charge Sheet against him. 3. 3. The defence plea is that the father of the victim gave a proposal for marriage of his daughter (victim) with the ac¬cused-Respondent and when it was turned down, being annoyed, he in connivance with his brother and the alleged victim initiated a false case against the accused-Respondent. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all, of whom, P.W.1 is the father of the victim, P.W.2 is her paternal uncle, P.W.3 is the victim herself, P.W.4 is the lady Medical Officer, who examined the victim, P.W.5 is the A.S.I., who reduced the oral report of the victim into writing, P.W.6 is the O.I.C. of Nuagaon Police Station and P.W.7 is the doctor, who examined the accused-Respondent. The defence did not prefer to examine any witness. 5. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court doubted the veracity of the prosecution case, since the two material witnesses namely, Ratna and Basanti were withheld from witness box and the evidence of P.W.4 was not sufficient to hold that in fact the victim was raped on the alleged date of occur¬rence and accordingly acquitted the accused-Respondent on benefit of doubt as stated earlier. Being aggrieved with the order of acquittal, the Government has preferred this appeal. 6. Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl.Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that it transpires from the evidence of P.W.3 that on the alleged date of occurrence while she was easing herself, the accused-Respondent came near her and when she stood up, he caught hold of her right hand, forcibly laid her down on the ground and committed sexual intercourse on her. She was cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from her to doubt her credibility. Except the bare suggestion to some of the witnesses, there is no material whatsoever to establish the plea of the defence that since the marriage proposal of the victim with the accused-Respondent was turned down, P.W.1 in connivance with P.Ws 2 and 3 foisted the case against him false¬ly. Mr. Patnaik further submits that the father and paternal uncle of the victim were not expected to bring false allegation of rape on their daughter/niece exposing them all to social stigma and making the marriage prospect of the victim bleak. So the trial Court committed error in acquitting the accused-Re¬spondent. 7. Mr. Mr. Patnaik further submits that the father and paternal uncle of the victim were not expected to bring false allegation of rape on their daughter/niece exposing them all to social stigma and making the marriage prospect of the victim bleak. So the trial Court committed error in acquitting the accused-Re¬spondent. 7. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-Respondent submits that as per the prosecution case, Ratna and his wife Basanti arrived at the spot hearing hullah raised by the victim, but their examination has been withheld. Had they been examined, the real fact would have been brought to light. He further submits that as per the report of P.W.4, the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. There is no specific evidence that there was recent sexual intercourse on her. If at all there was intercourse, the possibility that the alleged victim was a consenting party to it, cannot be ruled out. At this stage, Mr. Patnaik submits that as per the evidence of P.W.2, the paternal uncle of the victim, the age of the later was 14 years at the time of occurrence. So, even if it is presumed that P.W.3 was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse, still then the accused-Respondent cannot escape from criminal liabili¬ty. On the hand Mr. Mohanty submits that as per the evidence of P.W.4, who determined the age of the victim after going through the X-Ray report, the age of the victim was 15 to 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence. According to him, the evidence of P.W.2 that the victim was aged 14 years at the time of occur¬rence, without any other supporting evidence, should not be accepted. The evidence of P.W.1, the father of the victim is silent with regard to the age of the latter. He is the best person to give her age. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the victim was aged 14 years at the time of occurrence. Determination of age on ossification test many vary up to two years on either side. So the victim might have been aged 13 years or 18 years. Naturally the view that would go in favour of the accused should be accepted. So, in my opinion the victim was more than 16 years by the time of alleged occurrence. Determination of age on ossification test many vary up to two years on either side. So the victim might have been aged 13 years or 18 years. Naturally the view that would go in favour of the accused should be accepted. So, in my opinion the victim was more than 16 years by the time of alleged occurrence. Because of non-examination of the maternal uncle and aunt of the victim who are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence coupled with the fact that the victim was habituated to sexual inter¬course, the possibility that if at all any sexual intercourse was committed on the victim it was with her consent cannot be ruled out. 8. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it ap¬pears that the accused-Respondent might have committed the crime in question, but there is a long gap between might have and must have. It is incumbent on the prosecution to establish that the accused-Respondent must have committed the crime so as to bridge the gap, but it has failed to do so. The appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Court, if the view taken by it is a plausible one. In the present case, the trial Court acquitted the accused-Respondent on benefit of doubt. In my view the finding given by the trial Court is a plausible one. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.