JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2006 whereby the accused-respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 450 and 376 Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra against the respondent No.2 Mahaveer for the offence. punishable under Sections 450 and 376 Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code and FIR No.280/2006 was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.2, which was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra. Charges were framed against the respondent No.2 as aforesaid. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded in which he denied the allegations alleged against him and defence evidence was produced. After conclusion of the trial, respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charges. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that there was sufficient material available on record to convict the respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 450 and 323 Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court has ignored the material aspect of the facts. The respondent No.2 has been given the benefit of doubt on the ground delay and dispute regarding plot but the learned trial court has to consider the matter that no dispute regarding plot was present between the complainant and the accused and the delay was reasonably explained. Hence, looking to the statement of the prosecutrix supported by the medical evidence, the impugned order should be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the trial court. The trial court has considered the matter in right perspective. It was a case of consent coupled with delay in filing FIR and independent witnesses have not corroborated the story of rape. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. PW4, Smt. Darshna Devi, in her statement, has stated about the rape but in cross-examination, the statement has shaken. She has categorically stated that Mahaveer was previously known to her and he remained with her for whole afternoon about 2-3 hours. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. PW4, Smt. Darshna Devi, in her statement, has stated about the rape but in cross-examination, the statement has shaken. She has categorically stated that Mahaveer was previously known to her and he remained with her for whole afternoon about 2-3 hours. She further stated that they slept on the bed and the respondent No.2 had put on salvar to her after the incident. After considering these material facts, the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the matter is of consent and the learned trial court has also considered the age of the prosecutrix, which was about 19 years. These facts are also coupled with the fact that the report was delayed one and no reasonable explanation has been given for this delay. 7. PW1 Saroj, who happens to be the eye-witness of the incident, has also not corroborated the story of the prosecutrix. It is true that the prosecutrix received some injuries and PW5 Subhash Rajput has also stated about the injuries but the learned trial court has observed that the injuries are not in consonance with the statement of the prosecutrix and there are material contradictions between the previous statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Criminal Procedure Code and the statement given during the trial. 8. Hence, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court has considered the matter in right respective and had given a definite conclusion that there was no evidence against the respondent No.2 that he had committed rape on Smt. Darshna Devi. 9. Looking at the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned under warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******