JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. - The State has called in question the order of acquittal dated 27.09.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in S.T. Case No. 92 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 376 (2)(g)/ 366/ 323/ 34 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 92/24 of 1993. 2. Case of the prosecution is short is the following : In the night of 06.10.1992 two girls being accompanied by another lady and some persons had gone village Purunapani to witness Durgapuja festival celebration. Around 9 pm both the girls went to the other side of the road near the festival ground for the purpose of urination. It is said that at that point of time some young person's suddenly arrived there and one among them having caught hold the hand of one (P.W.2), the remaining three dragged another (P.W.9). It is said that the girl (P.W.2) somehow managed to escape. It is the further case of the prosecution that the respondents thereafter committed rape upon her (P.W.9) one after another taking her to a lonely place. The girl (P.W.9) who had escaped informed the matter to some persons including one Andrias Horo who then went in search of the girl (P.W.9). They proceeded in the direction of that lonely place and on reaching there Andrias Horo, saw one of the respondents committing rape on the girl (P.W.9) and seeing them the other two fled away. It is said that Andrias then caught hold of that respondent who was committing rape and ascertained his name and also the names of his other two associates. Thereafter, it is said that the respondent who had been restrained by Andrias, managed to escape. On the next morning, the girl went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. for which the case was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the respondents for facing trial. Accordingly, the respondents faced trial for commission of alleged offence under Section 376(2)(g) 366/ 324/ 34 of I.P.C. 3. Prosecution in order to bring home the charges, in total examined 16 witnesses. P.W.1 is the girl who had gone for witnessing Durgapuja and had accompanied the two girls for certain distance for urination. Accordingly, the respondents faced trial for commission of alleged offence under Section 376(2)(g) 366/ 324/ 34 of I.P.C. 3. Prosecution in order to bring home the charges, in total examined 16 witnesses. P.W.1 is the girl who had gone for witnessing Durgapuja and had accompanied the two girls for certain distance for urination. P.W.2 is that girl who managed to escape and she is none other than the cousin sister of the other girl who is the victim examined as P.W.9. P.W.3 is that Andrias Horo who had reached at the spot at the time of rape. P.W.4 is the Radiologist who had conducted ossification test in order to ascertain the age of the victim girl. P.W.5 is a Police Constable who had accompanied the victim for medical examination, P.W.6 is a person who had gone to witness the festival, witness to the seizure is P.W.7. The Sarpanch of the locality has been examined as P.W.8. P.W.10 is the initial investigating Officer when P.W.11 is another person who has present in the festival ground, P.W.12 is the other doctor who had examined the victim (P.W.9). Another witness present in the festival during the time has been examined as P.W. 13. Another witness to the seizure has been examined as P.W. 14 as also P.W. 15 and P.W. 16 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and finally submitted charge-sheet. Thus, P.W. 1 is said to be an eye witness to the initial part of the alleged occurrence, P.W. 3 is said to be the an eye witness to the last part and P.W. 6, 8, 11 and 13 are said to be present in the festival and the star witness is P.W. 9, the victim. P.W. 2 is the other girl and a witness to the initial part of the incident and had escaped. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses has finally acquitted the respondents of the charges holding that the prosecution has not been able to establish the factum of gang rape by the respondents upon the P.W. 9 and so also offence relating to kidnapping and assault. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that appreciation of the evidence in the present case as made by the Trial Court is highly improper and the finding therefore, that has been rendered in the ultimatum is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that appreciation of the evidence in the present case as made by the Trial Court is highly improper and the finding therefore, that has been rendered in the ultimatum is not sustainable in the eye of law. According to him, the evidence of victim girl P.W.9 ought to have been accepted in its entirety even without any corroboration. It is also his submission that besides the evidence of the victim girl strong corroborative evidence also stands providing support to her evidence and that those are sufficient to convict the respondents for the offences for which they stood charged. According to him the Trial Court has erred in law by holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he with vehemence, urges for interference with the order of acquittal in the present appeal so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits in support of the appreciation of evidence made by the Trial Court and also the finding. According to her the evidence of P.W.9 who is the victim is highly improbable when it is considered along with the evidence of doctor's and other witnesses. It is also his submission that the Trial Court did no mistake in finally acquitting the respondents. 6. The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that while High Court has full powers to appreciate the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based and to act on its own thereof, it will not do solightly and will be slow to reverse an acquittal, except for strong and compelling reasons when it differs from that of the trial Court. The paramount consideration in the matter is to avoid miscarriage of justice. Of course where two views are possible and the trial Court has taken a reasonable view and acquitted the accused, the High Court in appeal cannot interfere with such finding but when there is perverse finding based on erroneous appreciation of evidence and a serious miscarriage of justice has been caused, the High Court has ample power to reverse that finding. 7. 7. In view of above rival submission, let us, go to examine the evidence of the prosecution to find out as to how far the finding rendered by the Trial Court is sustainable in the eye of law and such if liable to be interfered with. Prosecution case as it reveals from F.I.R. dated 07.10.1992 lodged by the victim, P.W.9 that in the previous night she with some other lady had gone to Purunapani to See Durgapuja festival. They were sitting in open field when around 9.00 pm she with her sister, P.W.2 went to other side of the road for urination. It is her deposition that while they were urinating the respondents arrived there and two of them caught hold of her and the P.W.9 was caught hold by the one and P.W.2 some how managed to escape. It is stated that one respondent caught hold of her hands, another her legs and then the third one removed her 'chhadi' they forcibly made her lie on the ground and whereafter one after another committed sexual intercourse forcibly. It is stated that after committing rape, two left the place and when the third one was near her when other persons arrived. This P.W.9 is not specifically identifying as to which respondent had caught hold of her hand and which one her legs and who removed her chhadi, nor even as to which of the two first caught of her. The victim (P.W.9) did not know them beforehand. She has stated to have seen them for the first time when the occurrence took place and for the second time saw two of them during evidence. In this case no test identification parade was conducted and she has been examined on 19.02.1994 when the incident had taken place as per her version on 05.10.1992. It is also not stated as to who first committed rape and who did thereafter. On the date of examination, she has simply stated to have known the accused persons. P.W.3 although names respondent No. 3 he further says that he could know the names of other two from respondent No. 3. P.W.9 is not stating the names nor even of one, who was caught hold of by P.W.3. But she in F.I.R. Ext. 14 has mentioned the name of the culprits who was caught hold of by P.W.3. But during evidence she is silent on this score. P.W.9 is not stating the names nor even of one, who was caught hold of by P.W.3. But she in F.I.R. Ext. 14 has mentioned the name of the culprits who was caught hold of by P.W.3. But during evidence she is silent on this score. P.W.2 has simply stated to have been caught hold of by Krishna but names of other two have not been stated. P.W.3 is not stating that P.W.2 had disclosed the names of any to him. In such state of affair in evidence, the identity of these respondents appears to have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Next P.W.4 has been examined as the doctor since he had examined the P.W.9. When it is stated by P.W.9 that one after another sexual intercourse upon her against her will, the medical evidence is to the effect that there was no violence at all on the private part of the victim. It is also the evidence of the doctor, P.W.4 that some old tears on the hymen were there and the age of those old tears have also been ascertained to be around one year when no spermatozoa was found any nor any sign of recent rape was noticed. The age of the victim girl is ascertainly roughly to be within the range of 15 to 17 years. So the medical evidence also do not support the evidence of the victim. Again coming to the evidence of P.W. 9, it is seen that she had stated positively that after the rape being committed by the respondents, she felt pain and could not stand for some time. The Investigating Officer in course of investigation has sent the vaginal swab for chemical examination, but chemical examination report does not render any such assistance to the prosecution case. P.W. 3 stated that he had seen the occurrence when the respondents were there and seeing him two ran away when the third one was committing rape. But P.W.9 states that one of the respondents was standing with her till arrival of the outsider and other two after raping left her and went away. The evidence of P.W.3 is specific to the effect that when he arrived there rape was being committed upon P.W.9 by respondent No. 3. But P.W.9 states that one of the respondents was standing with her till arrival of the outsider and other two after raping left her and went away. The evidence of P.W.3 is specific to the effect that when he arrived there rape was being committed upon P.W.9 by respondent No. 3. Thus the role of the respondents as assigned by P.W.9 at the time of arrival of P.W.4 and others differs as per the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 9. The chhadi of the victim girl was seized and sent for examination wherein no semen or stain was detected and it has been specifically stated by P.W.9 that after commission of the rape, she had worn the chhadi and there was blood on her private part. This puts the evidence of P.W.9 under further scanner and a doubt arises in the mind as regards forcible sexual intercourse upon her by three persons successively one by one, against her will. Cumulatively, viewing all these, this Court is not in a position to record a disagreement with the view taken by the trial Court, by not placing implicit reliance on her evidence to fasten the guilt upon the respondents and this Court finds as no such strong or compelling reasons to do so. In view of the above discussion of evidence, this Court finds no such strong or compelling reason to take a different view and conclude that finding rendered by the Trial Court is unsustainable. In the wake of aforesaid, the order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with. 9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed