JUDGMENT : The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T. Case No. 71-A of 1994 (Trial No. 03 of 1995) acquitting the Respondent of the charges under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal run as under : On 18.08.1993 around 6.15 p.m., P.W. 5 presented a written report under Ext 3 before the Circle Inspector of Police, Angul alleging there in that around 2 P.M. when his wife had been to attend the call of nature near Dasabandha pond of their village Respondent finding her alone & taking it as the opportune moment forcibly committed sexual intercourse upon her in the nearby paddy field. This necessitated the registration of the case & the commencement of investigation thereafter. On completion of investigation, finally police placed the Respondent for trial for the above noted offences by way of submission of charge-sheet in the Court of law. 3. The prosecution in the trial in order to establish its case against the Respondent examined as many as six witnesses. Besides the above, the prosecution proved the F.I.R. as Ext. 3, medical •examination report of the- victim, seizure list & other documents. Defence has tendered no evidence despite opportunity being given. The victim has been examined as P.W. 1 & her husband is P.W. 5, P. W. 2, is her sister-in-law, P. W. 6 is the investigating Officer & P. W. 3 & 4 are two seizure witnesses. 4. The Trial Court upon analysis of evidence on record let in by the prosecution both oral and documentary has refused to rely upon evidence of victim P.W. 1 as regards establishment of factum of sexual intercourse upon her by the Respondent against her will i.e., commission of rape. The Court below has also found no such other evidence standing as corroboration to make good the deficiency or any such circumstance so as to place implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-State submits that in this case, the appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court is improper. According to him, the Trial Court ought to have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 for fastening the guilt upon the Respondent, who is liable for the offences for which he stood charged. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-State submits that in this case, the appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court is improper. According to him, the Trial Court ought to have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 for fastening the guilt upon the Respondent, who is liable for the offences for which he stood charged. He further submits that the Trial Court has gone to pick up some flimsy reasons to entertain doubt with regard to the veracity of the testimony of P.W.1. He further submits that even though the required corroboration from evidence was available, the Trial Court has ignored the same. Thus, he contends that the finding of the Trial Court-is perverse being based on improper appreciation of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice & the same therefore, calls for interference. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, supports the finding of the Trial Court which is based on proper appreciation of evidence. According to him, the Trial Court has taken all the circumstances as those emanate from the evidence into consideration & has accordingly proceeded to appreciate the evidence of the victim as well as the other evidence. He contends that the finding rendered by the Trial Court against the case of prosecution is unassailable. 7. Before going to re-appreciate the evidence in the light of the contentions as advanced, it is felt apposite to take note of the settled position of law with regard to the scope & power of this Court for interference with the order of acquittal. 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 & to act on its own thereof, it will not do so lightly & will be slow to reverse an acquittal, except for strong & 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 & the Trial Court has taken a reasonc1ble view & 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 & a serious miscarriage of justice has been caused, the High Court has ample power to reverse that finding. 8. The victim lady has been examined as P.W. 1. It is her evidence that while she was returning from village pond taking bath after attending call of nature, on her way back home, the Respondent restrained her by catching hold of her, made her lie in the paddy field, removed her clothes & raped her by gagging her mouth with her saree. She states that after the incident, she first narrated it before the P.W. 2, her sister-in-law & then P.W. 5 her husband. It is also the evidence of P.W. 1 that Respondent made her lie on the ground after forcibly taking her to the paddy field & then raped her by gagging after fully un-robbing her. In such circumstance ordinarily it is expected that the victim who is a married lady would go for resistance, giving rise to some injury on her body, more particularly in this case when it is stated by none other than the victim, that she was made wholly naked & made to lie on the paddy field & then being gagged was raped. Ext. 4 the medical examination report does not find mention of any kind of injury. This deficit has been attempted to be made good by P. W. 5, the husband of .the victim by stating that the ground was then muddy. But it is not the evidence of the victim. Therefore, P.W.5's evidence on that score is not acceptable. Next the victim although has stated that there was forcible sexual intercourse, she has again stated that there was no discharge of semen either inside or outside & neither her vagina nor her saree (M.O.-I) have been stained with semen. No injury has also been noticed by the doctor during examination of the victim either recent or past on her private part & so also no semen with dead or living spermatozoa has been defected in her vagina. No injury has also been noticed by the doctor during examination of the victim either recent or past on her private part & so also no semen with dead or living spermatozoa has been defected in her vagina. The opinion of the doctor is to the effect that there was absence of any sign or symptom of recent sexual intercourse. In view of above, in the facts & circumstances no fault is found with the Trial Court's view in not placing implicit reliance upon the testimony of P.W.1 & in not acting upon her solitary testimony to fasten the guilt upon the Respondent. 9. In view of all these, I have no disagreement with the finding of Trial Court which appears to have been arrived on proper analysis of the evidence being duly appreciated with all other surrounding circumstances holding that there has been failure on the part of the prosecution to bring home the charge against the Respondent. Resultantly the Government Appeal stands dismissed.