JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties and the case is disposed of in the following manner. 2. The State of Orissa has assailed the judgment and order dated 6.8.1992 passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 1/05 of 1992 wherein he acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge under Sections 342/376 of I.P.C. 3. The case, as delineated by the prosecution is that on 5.7.1991 as mother of the alleged victim, (P.W.7) was suffering from blood dysentery; mother of the accused-Respondent advised her to take Chuda and old tamarind pods and asked P.W. 7 to fetch the tamarind pods from her house. Accordingly, P.W. 7 accompanied her to her house and the latter gave her some tamarind pods. While she was returning with tamarind pods, the accused-Respondent forcibly dragged her to a nearby room of his house, laid her down on the ground, undraped her clothes, mounted over her and committed sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. Though the prosecutrix tried her best to wriggle out of his clutches, she could not be successful. After exhausting himself, the accused-Respondent left the spot, where after she put on her wearing apparels and came to her house with the tamarind pods. Because of sexual intercourse, her private part bled and the bleeding did not cease, so on the same date, she was removed to Baripada District Headquarters Hospital for treatment, where P.W. 9, the then lady Asst. Surgeon of the said hospital, got her admitted in the hospital at 3.20 P.M. and after rendering primary treatment referred her to P.W. 10, the Specialist in O & G. In the mean time, P.W.9 intimated the fact to the local police. Accordingly, the O.I.C. of Kuliana P.S., (P.W. 11) came to District Headquarter Hospital, Baripada, before whom P.W.7 orally reported the incident, which was reduced into writing and treated as F.I.R. As the allegation contained in the F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case under Sections 376/342 of I.P.C., P.W. 11 registered the case and took up investigation. In curse of investigation, he examined the witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of the alleged victim and prepared seizure list in respect thereof, visited the spot, arrested the accused-Respondent and sent him to the hospital for medical examination and after completion of his medical examination forwarded him to Court. In curse of investigation, he examined the witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of the alleged victim and prepared seizure list in respect thereof, visited the spot, arrested the accused-Respondent and sent him to the hospital for medical examination and after completion of his medical examination forwarded him to Court. On 22.7.1991, as he was under order of transfer, P.W.11 handed over charge of the case to A.S.I., M.S. Jena, who in turn save charge of investigation of the case to P.W.12, the Circle Inspector (Sadar) Circle, Baripada. P.W.12 examined some more witnesses including the victim, seized the tamarind pods which the alleged victim had brought from the accused-Respondent for her mother and after receiving the medical report from P.W.10 submitted charge sheet. The case having been committed to the Court of Session, it was transferred to the Asst. Sessions Judge, Baripada for trial. Charge was framed under Sections 342/376 of I.P.C. The plea of the accused-Respondent was complete denial of his involvement in the alleged crime in question. It was his further plea that because of previous enmity between his family members and the family members of the alleged victim, the case was falsely foisted against him. 4. In order to bring home the charge against the accused-Respondent, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge under Sections 342/376 of I.P.C, inter alia holding that the entire case of the prosecution was shrouded with impregnable clouds of doubts. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the State of Orissa has preferred the present appeal as stated earlier. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that the trial Court did not believe the evidence of P.W.7, as she did not disclose that she was ravished by the accused-Respondent to her mother (P.W.8) and the Doctors P.Ws. 9 and 10 and on the other hand, she stated before P.Ws. 9 and 10 that while she was taking bath in a pond, accidentally a stick got inserted to her private part causing injuries. P.W.7 was an unmarried girl by the time of occurrence. 9 and 10 and on the other hand, she stated before P.Ws. 9 and 10 that while she was taking bath in a pond, accidentally a stick got inserted to her private part causing injuries. P.W.7 was an unmarried girl by the time of occurrence. So the possibility that she did not disclose the actual incident before any one except the I.O. (P.W.11) out of shame and due to the fear that her marriage prospect would be in bleak, cannot be ruled out, particularly when she deposed in the Court on oath that out of shame she did not disclose the actual incident at the first instance. Accordingly, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel urged that the judgment of the trial Court should be reversed and an order of conviction should be recorded against the accused-Respondent. 6. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. Prosecution mainly relied upon evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W.7) and the doctor, P.W. 10. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.7 that accused-Respondent undraped her, forcibly laid her down on a rough surface and ravished her vigorously for 5 to 10 minutes and she tried her best to be wriggled out but failed. No injury was found on the back and external part of the genital of P.W.7. So the trial Court held that if the manner in which P.W.7 was said to have been ravished was true, most likely there would have some sort of injury on her back and some external injury on her genital. When no such injury was found and the alleged victim did not prefer to disclose the incident before anybody till P.W. 11 appeared in the Hospital that too on the report of the lady Asst. Surgeon (P.W.9), it casts a doubt on the veracity of the evidence of P.W.1. At the time of alleged incident the so called victim was more than 16 years. As per her evidence, while she was returning home with tamarind pods from the house of the accused-Respondent, the latter closed the doors of his house and ravished her. The mother of accused-Respondent was there in the house itself, so it appears improbable that the accused-Respondent committed the crime in question without the consent and willingness of the prosecutrix. If at all the accused-Respondent committed sexual intercourse on P.W.7, the possibility that she was a willing partner to it, cannot be ruled out. The mother of accused-Respondent was there in the house itself, so it appears improbable that the accused-Respondent committed the crime in question without the consent and willingness of the prosecutrix. If at all the accused-Respondent committed sexual intercourse on P.W.7, the possibility that she was a willing partner to it, cannot be ruled out. The submission of the learned Addl. Standing Counsel that the prosecutrix did not disclose the fact of rape immediately out of shame and for fear that her marriage prospect would be doomed, cannot be accepted particularly when she stated before P.Ws. 9 and 10 that while taking bath in a pond, accidentally a stick got inserted on her private part. In an appeal against acquittal, it is to be seen as to whether the finding recorded by the trial Court was reasonably plausible. If the finding was a plausible one, even if Anr. view can be taken, no interference is called for. In the present case, the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one. Moreover, the incident took place on 5.7.1991, the accused-Respondent faced the ordeal of trial till 6.8.1992 i.e. for more than one year. The present appeal was filed in the year 1993, in the mean time more than one and half decades have elapsed. Under such circumstances, it would be travesty of justice to set aside the order of acquittal and record an order of conviction against the accused-Respondent. In the result, the Government Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial Court are hereby confirmed. The accused-Respondent be discharged of his bail bond. Final Result : Dismissed