Judgment Dwivedi, J. ( 1. ) The applicant/State has preferred this petition U/sec. 378 (3) Cr.PC for the grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 2.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, Guna in Special Case No. 119/07; whereby acquitted the respondent/accused from the charges U/sec. 376 (1), 323 and 506 Part - II of IPC and 32 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case are, on 14.6.2007 at about 7.50 pm, the complainant/prosecutrix together with her minor daughter was in the shop of one Hari Prasad (PW-3) at that time, the respondent/accused came to the shop, who is also known to the complainant/prosecutrix, he shut down the shutter of the shop concerned and thereafter, committed forcible rape on the prosecutrix who is aged about 40 years and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. The complainant/prosecutrix had lodged the First Information Report at Police Station, Ashok Nagar two days after the incident i.e. on 16.6.2007 on which basis, police had registered a case u/sec. 376 of IPC and 3 (2) (v) of the SC and ST Act. Sent the complainant/prosecutrix for medical examination to the Government hospital, recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused and after due investigation, charge sheet had been filed. ( 3. ) Learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record by impugned judgment acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges aggrieved by which, State has filed this petition for the grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. ( 4. ) Having heard learned Public Prosecutror for the appellant/State and perused the impugned judgment. ( 5. ) It is submitted by Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State that the complainant/prosecutrix categorically stated that the respondent/accused has committted rape on her. This has got further support by the child eye witness Deep Mala (PW-2), who was also present on the spot and supported by the FIR, the learned trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix and wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges, hence, prayed grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. ( 6. ( 6. ) On perusal of the statement of complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1), who is admittedly aged about 40 years a married lady she stated that the respondent/ accused entered into the shop and committed forcible rape on her and after commission of the act also, threatened her not to disclose about the incident otherwise he will kill her. In whole of her statement, she has not narrated about the fact that the respondent/accused was armed with any weapon and due to fear, she could not oppose the respondent/accused for the aforesaid act. Admittedly the complainant is aged about 40 years a married lady and if the accused was not having any arm then she can effectively oppose the act of the accused, this fact and circumstances also clearly indicative of the unnatural conduct of the complainant/prosecutrix. ( 7. ) It is true that the child witness Deep Mala (PW-2) stated that the appellant/accused had forcibly sit on the abdomen of her mother and remain there for near about half an hour, but there are material omission in her previous statement wherein, she had not stated that the respondent/accused remain on her mothers abdomen for near about half an hour and also promised her to give new frock. In view of that, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the statement of child witness Deep Mala (PW-2). ( 8. ) The most important witness of the incident is Hari Prasad (PW-3), who immediately came on the shop and only stated that the complainant told him some quarrel took place in between her and Rajaram respondent due to some payment of money but, she had not stated about the commission of the offence of rape by the respondent/accused. ( 9. ) Similarly, the other material witness Suresh Sharma (PW-4), Radhelal (PW-6), Mahendra Singh (PW-7), Deepak Kumar Gupta (PW-8) and Raj Kumar (PW-9) who also residing near the shop of Hari Prasad had also not stated that complainant/prosecutrix had narrated to them with regard to alleged commission of rape by the respondent/accused. All these independent witnesses had been declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, Dr. Sudha Bhargava (PW-12), who examined the complainant/prosecutrix had also not found any injuries on the body of the complainant/prosecutrix on which basis, this can be inferred that she had opposed the alleged act of rape by the respondent/accused. Similarly, Dr. All these independent witnesses had been declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, Dr. Sudha Bhargava (PW-12), who examined the complainant/prosecutrix had also not found any injuries on the body of the complainant/prosecutrix on which basis, this can be inferred that she had opposed the alleged act of rape by the respondent/accused. Similarly, Dr. Sudha Bhargav (PW-12) also stated that she had prepared slide from the vagina swab and after sealing it handed over to the police constable for its examination, but no such chemical examination report had been produced by the prosecution on which basis this can be inferred that any forcible intercourse had been committed by the respondent on the complainant. Similarly, the FIR Ex.P/1 had also been lodged two days after the incident for which no reasonable and probable explanation had been given by the complainant and on which basis also, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the statement of the prosecutrix. ( 10. ) Thus, on overall re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, in our considered opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the statement of prosecutrix and thus, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court does not appear to be perverse or illegal. ( 11. ) Resultantly, no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned judgment, hence, the petition for the grant of leave to appeal is dismissed accordingly.