JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J. (1) This is a State appeal against acquittal. (2) The accused was charged for offence punishable under Sections 342, 323 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses. (3) PW 1 - Tulsa Tarachand Rathod is the prosecutrix, PW 7 - Parashram Nathuji Rathod is the uncle of the prosecutrix, and PW 8 - Rukhma Chainsingh Jadhav is a common relative, i.e. cousin of PW 1 as well as of accused. (4) As per the oral report :- [a] The accused had dragged the prosecutrix in the house of Babulal Rathod, assaulted, undressed her and committed rape. [b] While the rape was either completed and accused was still not separated, PW 8 -Rukhma heard the shouts and knocked the door. [c] On this, the accused opened the door and ran away. [d] PW 8 - Rukhma then took the prosecutrix to PW 7 - Parshuram , who, in turn, took her to Police Station, where oral report was lodged. Prosecutrix was then sent for medical examination, which was conducted at Wardha. After completing investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Heard learned APP Mr. M.J. Khan for the appellant and Mr. Roshan Prajapti appearing for Mr. S.D. Chopde, Adv., for respondent. Perused the evidence. (5) It is seen that out of total nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, relevant witnesses are PW 1 - Tulsa, victim, PW 7 -Parshuram, her uncle, and PW 8 - Rukhma, a common relative of accused as well as prosecutrix. (6) The prosecutrix did not reveal in her Examinationin- Chief the version as narrated in the complaint or statement recorded by police. The prosecution was allowed to cross-examine her. She was cross-examined wherein she revealed the story which supported the prosecution. (7) In the cross-examination by the accused, the prosecutrix has given a version which completely shatters the prosecution story. The cross-examination runs into almost four- and-half pages. The gist of her revelations is as follows:- [a] The place where rape was committed is in the close proximity of houses, and is in front of a public well. [b] That being a Holi festival day, there was traffic around, people were washing clothes, fetching water, and it was not a lonely street. [c] Blood was oozing from her mouth and even vagina, which she had shown to the doctor. [b] That being a Holi festival day, there was traffic around, people were washing clothes, fetching water, and it was not a lonely street. [c] Blood was oozing from her mouth and even vagina, which she had shown to the doctor. [d] She did not go to her parents' house after the rape. [e] Her parents did not accompany her to Police Station. [f] PW 7 - Parshuram took her to Police Station. [g] Even on the date of deposition, her parents had not come to the Court and she was brought there by her uncle -Parshuram. [h] There are groups in the village, one belonging to Parshuram, who is a Sarpanch, and other led by accused. [i] There are complaints/cases and crosscomplaints amongst these two groups. [j] Her oral statement recorded in Police Station was, in fact, dictated by PW 7 - Parshuram. [k] Even today, she has told before the Court whatever was told to her by PW 7 - Parshuram. (8) PW 7 - Parshuram and PW 8 - Rukhma have described the manner in which the prosecutrix narrated them the incident. It is seen that the medical evidence supports that:- [a] The victim was capable of intercourse. [b] She had intercourse. (9) Medical evidence further discloses that:- [a] Two fingers could be admitted in the vagina of prosecutrix easily. [b] There were no injuries on the person of prosecutrix as noted in the report. (10) In the notes of medical examination, the doctor had recorded that the prosecutrix may be below eighteen years, and, therefore, her ossification test was recommended. It is not clear as to whether prosecutrix was referred for ossification test. Any record in relation thereto is not brought forward. It has come on record that the vaginal swab and other evidence requiring report of Chemical Analyzer was sent for chemical analysis. For reasons best known, the prosecution has failed to report to the Court as to whether the report is received, or otherwise, and if received, whether it was favourable to the prosecution, or otherwise. It has come on record that the vaginal swab and other evidence requiring report of Chemical Analyzer was sent for chemical analysis. For reasons best known, the prosecution has failed to report to the Court as to whether the report is received, or otherwise, and if received, whether it was favourable to the prosecution, or otherwise. (11) In the aforesaid premises of evidence, this Court has to find out:- Whether in this appeal against acquittal, this Court should hold that version of prosecutrix as emerging from crossexamination by the Public Prosecutor should be believed, and it could be held that prosecutrix was assaulted, raped etc., and could the Judgment of conviction and sentence be passed by substituting the Judgment of acquittal? (12) Ordinarily, statement of prosecutrix is to be believed. In the present case, the prosecutrix remained unassuming and vague in the Examination-in-Chief. In the cross-examination by the learned APP, she has reproduced the story as reflected or depicted in the oral First Information Report given by her. (13) In the cross-examination, however, the prosecutrix has given voluminous revelations, which may not in totality render her version untrue, it, however, creates not barely suggestions or a shadow of doubt, but grave doubts are created as to the substance and truthfulness of FIR as well as the testimony itself. (14) Even the revelations in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix conducted by the defence could have been ignored or brushed aside, had the medical evidence supported the prosecutrix. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix pleads total ignorance about her having any sexual relationship in past. The medical evidence, however, is totally contrary. Even this aspect may be ignored for the sake of argument. (15) The prosecutrix states that blood was oozing from her mouth, as well she had injury to the vagina. The observations of medical examination record contradict this factual allegation of the PW 1 narrated in FIR. (16) The medical evidence confirms possibility of sexual relationship, however, does not, in any manner, enable the doctor to opine that act of the accused was a rape. In the result, and sum effect of weight of testimony of prosecutrix is such that it does not help the Court to arrive at a concrete opinion that prosecutrix was raped. (16) The medical evidence confirms possibility of sexual relationship, however, does not, in any manner, enable the doctor to opine that act of the accused was a rape. In the result, and sum effect of weight of testimony of prosecutrix is such that it does not help the Court to arrive at a concrete opinion that prosecutrix was raped. On the other hand, the Court is driven to a picture which dwindles, suggesting that there was a probability of a sexual act not amounting to the rape. It also suggests that the entire story was a craft work of PW 7 - Parshuram. This possibility is fortified by the admission given by witnesses - not only the prosecutrix, but by PW 7 - Parshuram as well. PW 7 - Parshuram is portrayed to be the real key person leading to filing of a complaint, that there existed rivalry, and there is a history of crosscomplaints. (17) In these premises, it would be extremely unsafe to believe the prosecutrix. (18) Learned APP is trying to persuade this Court to take a different view upon re-appreciation of evidence, and this course is not open unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or any material evidence which has a bearing on the case is omitted from consideration. No such situation exists in the present case. Learned Sessions Judge has applied mind to entire facts and circumstances of the case findings which are duly reasoned. Entire material on record is considered by the Sessions Judge. (19) The Judgment and order of acquittal is not shown to be perverse. (20) In the circumstances, Judgment and order of acquittal, therefore, cannot be faulted. Appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.