Bansi Lal Bhat, J.— Condi. 23/2013 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Condonation application is disposed of. Cr. Acq. Appeal. 33/2013 4. This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.08.2012 formulated by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on file No. 33/Sessions titled State of J&K through Police Station, Nowabad v. Kehar Singh, in terms whereof respondent-accused has been acquitted of charges framed under Sections 376/342 RFC. The impugned judgement has been questioned on the ground that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence and drawn the conclusions against the weight of evidence, though the evidence brought on record by prosecution was sufficient to warrant his conviction. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the trial court judgment. 6. According to prosecution version, personnel of police Station, Nowabad raided Diamond Hotel located at Vinayak Bazar where a suspicious looking couple was found lodged in Room No. 202. It happened on 23.06.2006. On enquiry, the woman gave her particulars and handed over a complaint in Hindi in which it was alleged that Accused Kehar Singh who was Guru of her family, had employed deceitful means to call her to diamond Hotel on 15.6.2006 on the pretext of Satsang, assuring that her family will also join her. It was further alleged in the complaint that nobody from her family turned up and in the night the accused bolted the room from inside and ravished her against her will and without her consent. Case FIR no. 85/2006 was registered at Police Station Nowabad and investigation was embarked upon, which culminated in riling of the Charge sheet against the accused for offence under Sections 376/342/201 RFC. Case FIR no. 85/2006 was registered at Police Station Nowabad and investigation was embarked upon, which culminated in riling of the Charge sheet against the accused for offence under Sections 376/342/201 RFC. On the basis of material assembled during investigation, it was found that the accused working as Section Officer in Agricultural University, Palampur, had by deceitful means, called the prosecutrix who is resident of Nangal (Punjab) to Jammu on the pretext of Satsang assuring that her family was also going to join her, escorted her to his room in the Hotel falsely reflecting in the Hotel register that she was his wife, and at midnight, feigning to be a Guru in his previous birth with prosecutrix as his wife and exploiting helplessness of prosecutrix, committed rape with her repeatedly right from 15.06.2006. 7. The learned trial Court took cognizance of offence upon commitment of case, framed charges under Section 376/342 RFC to which respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses at the trial to bring home the guilt of the accused. On consideration of prosecution evidence adduced at the trial the plea of the accused in the form of plain denial of prosecution version and false implication the learned trial Court recorded the judgment of acquittal. 8. After wading through evidence brought on record by prosecution at the trial, we find no hesitation in recording our agreement with the conclusion derived by the learned trial Court on appreciation of prosecution evidence. 9. It is well settled that a victim of rape is not an accomplice and her uncorroborated testimony can be the basis for recording conviction of accused provided same is found capable of implicit faith being reposed therein. Assurance short of corroboration is enough to inspire confidence in the testimony of a victim of rape. This is the rule of caution which has to be present in the mind of trial Judge. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that testimony of prosecutrix, is reliable and worthy of credit. 10. In the instant case, the accused was known to prosecutrix for the last 17 years According to version of prosecutrix, she arrived at Bus Stand Jammu on 15.06.2006, where the accused was waiting for her. They boarded Autoriksha and proceeded towards Hotel, where they checked in Room No. 204. 10. In the instant case, the accused was known to prosecutrix for the last 17 years According to version of prosecutrix, she arrived at Bus Stand Jammu on 15.06.2006, where the accused was waiting for her. They boarded Autoriksha and proceeded towards Hotel, where they checked in Room No. 204. On finding that the family members of accused had not reached there, she enquired about the same. She was told that his family members could not come to Jammu but her parents would be reaching Jammu by evening. Prosecurtix was about 26 years old at the time of alleged occurrence. She was working in an Education College at Reasi. Though she claimed that accused was her Guru and on his asking she came over to Jammu to join Satsang, she admitted that during her stay in Diamond hotel from 15.06.2006 to 22.06.2006, she once stepped out of the Hotel, in the company of accused and had dinner with him in a Dhaba in open market. Apart from her testimony, a glance at the deposition of Hotel employees, namely, Dhamodhar Joshi, Rasal Chand and Som Nath brings it to fore that prosecutrix used to leave the Hotel in the company of accused every morning and evening. They have contradicted her version to the extent that as and when the accused left the Hotel he would lock the room. They also did not support the allegation of alleged rape of prosecutrix at the hands of the accused. On close scrutiny of testimony of prosecutrix and the Hotel staff who were the natural witnesses, it emerges that the allegations of prosecutirx being forcibly confined in the Hotel room by the accused are devoid of substance. The fact that the prosecutirx joined the accused for dinner in a crowded area and made no complaint of being sexually exploited despite opportunity belies her version of being a victim of rape. Appearance in public place thronged by multitude of people and not raising an alarm to seek help speaks volumes about the conduct of prosecutrix. Her silence is compatible with no conclusion but the one drawn by the learned trial Court that she was a consenting party. 11. In our considered opinion, learned trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that the testimony of prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and her conduct was not free from blemish. Her silence is compatible with no conclusion but the one drawn by the learned trial Court that she was a consenting party. 11. In our considered opinion, learned trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that the testimony of prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and her conduct was not free from blemish. The medical evidence too does not support her version. Absence of marks of violence on the body of the prosecutrix and the result of examination of vaginal smears also do not support allegations of rape. Learned trial Judge has highly declined to accept testimony of prosecutrix as the same was found suffering from serious infirmity. There is hardly any scope for recording disagreement with the learned trial judge when he holds that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she had cooked up a story of rape, when caught by police, only to salvage the family honour. 12. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. There are no substantial and compelling reasons to depart from such findings and adopt a contrary view. No case for admission of appeal is made out. 13. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.