JUDGMENT : D. DASH, J. 1. The order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur in S.C. No. 14 of 1995 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 376/ 506 of IPC has been called in question in this appeal filed by the State. The prosecution case in short is that on 4-1-1995 around 11.00 p.m., the victim had been to the nearby field from her house to attend call of nature. On her way back home, respondent detained her pointing knife and threatened to stab her in case she shouted. It is then stated that the respondent removed her clothes made her lie on the ground whereafter committed rape upon her. The victim lady came back crying and calling the neighbours and informed them about the incident. The villagers in turn on the next morning informed the local Sarpanch who came to the village, when the respondent was absent. Therefore, the information being lodged by the victim at the Police Station, the same led to commencement of investigation after necessary registration of the case. Finally, on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent who faced trial for the above offences, taking the plea of complete denial and false implication in view of the case filed by him against the husband of the victim and grudge being nurtured for the same. 2. Prosecution during trial examined 12 witnesses including the victim P.W. 1 and her husband P.W. 2, P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the post occurrence witnesses and the Sarpanch is the P.W. 6., P.Ws. 3 and 9 are the seizure witnesses and P.W. 8 is the Gram Rakhi of Village. The doctor examining the victim has been cited as a witness as P.W. 10. The investigating officer has been examined as P.W. 12 and the scribe of the FIR is P.W. 11. 3. The trial court on critical examination of the evidence let in by the prosecution disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 1 and refused to accept her sole testimony to fasten the guilty upon the respondent. This has resulted the acquittal of the respondent at the end of the trial which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in this case, the trial court committed grave error in discarding the evidence of P.W. 1 and without relying upon the same. This has resulted the acquittal of the respondent at the end of the trial which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in this case, the trial court committed grave error in discarding the evidence of P.W. 1 and without relying upon the same. According to him the solitary testimony of P.W. 1 passes through all those required tests of credibility and trust-worthiness. Therefore, according to him, the trial court ought to have accepted her evidence in arriving at the finding a regards establishment of charge of rape against the respondent. According to him, flimsy reasons have been assigned by the trial court for non-acceptance of evidence of the victim, which according to him is free from any blemish whatsoever. Therefore, he contends that the finding based on such appreciation of evidence is perverse and liable to be set aside so as to prevent the miscarriage of justice that has occurred by way of unmerited acquittal of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary supports the finding of the trial court in submitting that it has been passed on proper appreciation of evidence. According to him the testimony of P.W. 1 do not stand at that padestal so as to be wholly relied upon to say that the same itself is sufficient to form the basis of conviction for offence under Section 376 of IPC. Therefore, according to him, the trial court did commit no error in rendering a finding against the case of the prosecution. 5. Before going to take up the exercise of analysing the evidence on record keeping in mind the rival submission, it is felt appropriate to take note of the settled position of law with regard to scope of interference of this Court with the order of acquittal in exercise of power of appeal. 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 so lightly 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. 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 serious miscarriage of justice has been caused, the High Court has ample power to reverse that finding. 7. Keeping the aforesaid rival submission in mind, it is now necessary to examine the evidence let in from the side of the prosecution during trial to find out the sustainability of the finding rendered by the trial court holding appellant not guilty of offence under sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. 8. The most important witness from the side of the prosecution is the victim P.W. 1 and next is her husband P.W. 2 before whom she has stated to have divulged the incident on her return to home. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that during the relevant night at 11.00 p.m. She had gone to attend call of nature as she was suffering from dysentery to the nearby field at a distance of 20 to 30 yards carrying a container (dhala) filled with water. It is stated that when she was returning to her house, the respondent came, made her lie flat on the ground and threatened her to stab by a knife in case she raised any shout. She has further deposed that in spite of that threat, she could muster courage to raise hullah but no outsider came out as by then they were sleeping closing door as it was wintry then. Her further evidence is that the appellant removed her saree, under garment and then committed rape upon her. She has next stated that after commission of rape, the respondent also abused her. It is her evidence that hearing her hullah one Nayak Khura and Daso Kausalya came out side and dissuaded them not to quarrel. So, she went to her house, informed her husband about the occurrence. F.I.R. story is not running on the score that her husband was suffering from chest pain since few days before and she was suffering from dysentery. This is the reason as is now assigned by the victim compelling her to go outside during that hour of night. So, she went to her house, informed her husband about the occurrence. F.I.R. story is not running on the score that her husband was suffering from chest pain since few days before and she was suffering from dysentery. This is the reason as is now assigned by the victim compelling her to go outside during that hour of night. This part of narration appears to have been the introduction which in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be a minor. Next she has stated that she was first made to he flat on the ground by the appellant followed by the threat of being given stab by pointing the knife. The consequence is completely stated differently in the F.I.R. that she was first threatened to be stabbed pointing a knife and then her clothings were removed by the appellant who made her lie flat on the ground and raped. It has been deposed by the victim that thereafter when there was quarrel with the respondent with hot exchange of words between them, two villagers came out and dissuaded them not to quarrel. Her evidence is to the effect that when she initially raised hullah no body came out, does not appear to be acceptable and rather it appears that at a later point of time an explanation is sought to be given in that regard of showing an act resistance. It may be kept in mind the respondent is the front door neighbour of the victim. It has been stated by the victim that respondent tore her saree and then removed the same as well the undergarment while she was lying flat on the ground and thereafter rape was committed. The narration of the occurrence in the F.I.R. is not consistent with this evidence. F.I.R. is also silent about the arrival of two persons namely, Nayak Khura and Daso Kausalya. When during trial Naiku Khura has been examined as PW. 4 Daso Kausalya has not been examined PW. 4 has gone to state that P.W. 1 while was saying to as to why the respondent committed rape, the respondent was abusing in response. The conduct of this witness appears to be absured that hearing such an incident, he would not react in any manner and instead would return home asking both to put a stop. 4 has gone to state that P.W. 1 while was saying to as to why the respondent committed rape, the respondent was abusing in response. The conduct of this witness appears to be absured that hearing such an incident, he would not react in any manner and instead would return home asking both to put a stop. He stated that hearing the incident, he and the other asked them to go to their respective houses and that the matter would be decided in the morning. The matter being quite sensitive, the normal human conduct would be at least to scold the respondent and inform PW. 1's husband. PW. 4 has again stated that Bahidehi Kausalya dragged the victim by catching hold her hands in dissuading her to quarrel. This shows that the matter was not at all taken seriously. His further evidence is to the effect that he heard from the villagers about the incident. This again raises doubt that if she had already heard it in the night, still he maintained silence in not disclosing the incident to anybody in the morning. She is closely related to the victim who is her father's sister. It has been further deposed by the PW. 4 that the respondent was at the time of quarrel standing in front of the door of her own house and when there are more than 60 houses in the hamlet, none came. He has fairly admitted to have not disclosed the incident to anybody. Another important aspect appearing in the evidence of this witness is that after hearing about the incident in the night, she did not ask anything to the respondent. So the presence of this witness on that hour appears to be doubtful. In addition to all these, there is delay in lodging of F.I.R. and that too there is absence of acceptable explanation. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that during that night victim had informed the villagers and next day she along with others went to Sarpanch who advised to lodge the F.I.R. However, F.I.R. has been lodged on 6-5-1995 at about 7.00 p.m. without any short of explanation therein. The explanation for the first time is given in the evidence of P.W. 1 that on their way she met Grama Rakhi who asked her to return back to the village and then they waited for the respondent who was absent. The explanation for the first time is given in the evidence of P.W. 1 that on their way she met Grama Rakhi who asked her to return back to the village and then they waited for the respondent who was absent. So thereafter they again came to the Police Station. There appears no reason as to why they would return and would proceed again simply because the respondent was found absent. Furthermore this P.W. 1--victim has also stated to have sustained injury on her waist but that has also not been noticed by the doctor-P.W. 10 who has in clear terms stated that no injury was noticed on any part of the her body. Evidence of victim is to the effect that she surrendered to the forcible sexual intercourse because of the threat of stab by the respondent. But that part is not found to be believable on consideration of evidence and in the facts and circumstances of the case. All these when considered with the fact that the victim did not make any struggle to wriggle out for quiet sometime, rather go to show a case of consensual sexual act on her part. The trial court appears to have made elaborate discussion of the evidence, after finding that solitary testimony of victim-P.W. 1, in the present case is not sufficient to base conviction of the charges against the respondent and then went for searching corroboration. Lastly no such corroboration, the trial Court appears to have rightly held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of rape against the respondent. I find that the appreciation of evidence in the case is just, proper and also that the same has been done being alive to settled position of law and in its backdrop. Even on independent analysis of evidence on record as made above, this Court arrives at the same conclusion as that of the trial court. Thus the finding rendered by the trial court holding respondent not guilty for commission of offence under Section 376/ 506 of I.P.C. is not liable to be disturbed. Therefore, the acquittal of respondent of the above charge firmly stands on the ground and this court finds no justification to interfere with it. Resultantly the Appeal stands dismissed.