JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This Government Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 26.9.1987 passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Sessiosns Case No. 7 of 1987 acquitting the Respondent of the charge under Sections 456/376 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.6.1986 at about 10 P.M. the husband of the victim left home for work. Ten minutes thereafter, accused-Respondent (a co-worker of the victim's husband) knocked the backside door of the house, pushed it and came inside. When the victim resisted, accused-Respondent shut her mouth by putting his hand, forcibly laid her down, removed the saree and committed rape on her. Meanwhile, her husband (P.W.3) suddenly came in through the front door to collect 'khoini' tin which he had forgotten to carry. Seeing him, accused-Respondent fled away from the spot through the back door. But P.W.3 chased and nabbed the accused-Respondent as he fell down on a heap of firewood. He was handed over to police and F.I.R. was lodged, on receipt of which investigation was taken up and after completion of the same, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-Respondent. 3. Plea of the accused-Respondent is complete denial of the allegation. His case is that two months prior to the occurrence, there was a quarrel between him on one hand and victim's husband (P.W.3) and Babu Rao (P.W.6) on the other on 13.6.1986 at about 10.30 P.M. both P.Ws. 3 and 6 called him to a dinner and near the village well offered him liquor. As he refused to consume that 'Mouhuli', Babu Rao (P.W.6) assaulted him by lathi. One Sabarayya and one Bhimo came there and they all again assaulted him and took away his pant, shirt and some cash. He was also admitted in the hospital where he stayed for 25 days. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the victim and the doctor, and proved 23 documents, the defence examined only one witness. Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, who tried the case, by his Judgment dated 26.9.1987 acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge under Sections 376/457 IPC with the finding that the ingredients of the offence of rape have not been proved and that even if sexual intercourse was there, there might have been consent for the intercourse. 5. Mr. Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, who tried the case, by his Judgment dated 26.9.1987 acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge under Sections 376/457 IPC with the finding that the ingredients of the offence of rape have not been proved and that even if sexual intercourse was there, there might have been consent for the intercourse. 5. Mr. Pattnai, teamed Additional Government Advocate submits that there are ample materials against the accused-Respondent. The evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W.2) is very clear and cogent. She stated that the accused-Respondent forcibly inter coursed with her. When her husband came back, the accused tried to flee away, but was caught hold of by her husband. P.W.3, husband of the victim, also corroborated the version of the victim to the extent that the accused fled away from the spot and he chased the accused-Respondent and caught hold of him. P.W.4 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to apprehension of the accused. 6. Counsel for the accused-Respondent submits that no irregularity or illegality has been committed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused, as there is absolutely no material against him. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. Moreover, even if it is accepted that there was sexual intercourse, the same was with the consent of the victim as there was no resistance oby her, which is clear from the fact that there was no injury on the body or private part of the victim. 7. Perused the LCR including the statement of the witnesses. P.W.1 is the doctor who examined the victim and the accused. He stated that no mark of violence was found on the body or thigh of the victim. There was no matting of her pubic hair. There was no sign of recent sexual intercourse within 48 hours from the time of examination. In his cross-examination. P.W.1 admitted that when a girl is exposed to sexual intercourse against her will, abrasions may occur on her back and nail marks and bruises on her private parts. In such cases, nail marks and teeth marks may also occur on her breasts. P.W.2 is the victim, who stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence, at about 10.00 p.m., her husband left home for work. Ten minutes thereafter, the accused-Respondent came, knocked the backside door and entered inside her house. In such cases, nail marks and teeth marks may also occur on her breasts. P.W.2 is the victim, who stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence, at about 10.00 p.m., her husband left home for work. Ten minutes thereafter, the accused-Respondent came, knocked the backside door and entered inside her house. He shut her mouth by putting his hands, laid her down on the ground, removed her saree and committed sexual intercourse. While the accused was committing such act, her husband came inside the house through the front door for collecting his 'khaini' tin. Seeing him, the accused-Respondent fled away from the spot. But her husband chased the accused and caught hold of him. At that time, P.Ws. 4, 6 and one Asantullu came and on their query the accused said at first that he was drunk and that he committed a mistake, but thereafter he kept silent and did not open his mouth, pretended to be unconscious and fell down on the ground and lay there. Her husband and those three persons (P.Ws. 4, 6 and another) shifted the accused to her verandah. P.W.2 has also stated that her husband cut the hair of the head of the accused alleging that he outraged her modesty. P.W.3, the husband of the victim, corroborated the statement of P.W.2 and stated that when he entered inside the room he found the accused rising up from his wife who was lying on the ground. Seeing him, the accused tried to escape. P.W.3 chased the accused and as the latter fell down on a heap of firewood, he caught hold of his legs and apprehended him. As the accused again tried to escape, P.W.3 raised hullah, hearing which P.Ws. 4, 6 and one Asantulu came there. When they asked the accused about the occurrence, he fell down and lost his sense. Thereafter, he orally reported the matter at the Theruballi Out-post. P.W.4 corroborated the statement of P.W.3 with regard to apprehension of the accused and also stated that P.W.2 stated before him about the act committed by the accused and the accused also confessed before him. , P.W.5 is a post-occurrence witness, who did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. P.W.7, the I.O. specifically stated that the accused was lying on the verandah of the victim. There, the victim reported the matter. , P.W.5 is a post-occurrence witness, who did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. P.W.7, the I.O. specifically stated that the accused was lying on the verandah of the victim. There, the victim reported the matter. Thereafter, the accused was shifted to the hospital and sent for medical examination. 8. In the instant case, there was no bodily injury on the victim. Even though the accused has not taken the plea of consent in his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure such a plea can be raised and accepted. As has been noticed by the trial Court, although the allegation of P.W.2 was that she had been ravished without her consent and against her will by forcibly removing her saree and laying her down on the ground, but there was no mark of violence detected by the doctor. Moreover, the age of the victim was more than 18 years. When she was a grown up and married lady and had experience about sexual intercourse, why should she silently abide by the sexual lust of the accused if she had no consent to the same. In a case of rape, a married lady can resist the accused more than an unmarried lady. Further, she being a married lady, the fact that she did not take adequate care to close the door by bolting it from inside infers that the victim was offering an opportunity to the Respondent to visit her house. The evidence of P.W.2 before Court is that the accused put his hands on her mouth and, therefore, she could not raise hullah. But at the same time she also sated that the accused removed her saree and laid her down on the ground. At that time also the victim did not resist and did not raise any hullah. Only after seeing her husband, she complained. From these circumstances, it can be inferred that it is clear case of consent. True it is that accused had denied the charges by taking a plea of enmity and had not pleaded that he had sexual intercourse with P.W.2 with her consent. But it has been propounded by This Court in State of Orissa v. Pratap Mishra and Ors. From these circumstances, it can be inferred that it is clear case of consent. True it is that accused had denied the charges by taking a plea of enmity and had not pleaded that he had sexual intercourse with P.W.2 with her consent. But it has been propounded by This Court in State of Orissa v. Pratap Mishra and Ors. 1986 (1) Crimes 287 , that even if a plea of consent has not been pleaded, such a plea can be raised and accepted if it can be spelt out from the evidence. 9. A threadbare discussion of the evidence and materials on record has been made by the trial Court in the impugned order and ultimately it has come to the conclusion that the ingredients of rape have not been made out and that even if the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim, it was with her consent. After going through the records, This Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded and the view taken by the trial Court is correct and it needs no interfernece. 10. For the foregoing discussions, This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the trial Court judment acquitting the Respondent of the charge. Therefore, the same is upheld and the Government Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Final Result : Dismissed