JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. 1. The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gunupur in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charges under sections 376/506 I.P.C. Facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal run as under: During night on 30.05.1994, the victim was sleeping on her outdoor veranda along with her children, when her husband had been to nearby mango tope. It is around 11.00 pm, the respondent, a neighbour come near her, caught hold of her hands and sat over her. It is alleged that the victim when raised cry, respondent Closed her mouth by putting her saree inside and threatened her to kill in case she further raised shout. The victim then was stated to be pregnant for which no further resistance could not shown. It is next alleged that the respondent pulled the saree of the victim and forcibly committed sexual intercourse and then left the place. It is only thereafter victim raised hullah and narrated the incident before her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. So, her husband was called by the brother-in-law before whom the victim again described it. Thereafter all went to the respondent and asked him about said highly objectionable action. But the respondent flatly denied to have done so. Therefore, they approached the village gentries who called the respondent and also asked about the incident which again became an exercise in futility. The victim being ill, on the next day report was lodged at the police station which necessitated the registration of the case and the commencement of investigation thereafter. On completion of investigation, the respondent was placed for the trial for the above noted offences by way of submission of charge- sheet. 2. During trial, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses when the defence examined three. Besides the above, the prosecution proved the F.I.R. as Ext. 5, medical examination report of the victim, seizure list and other documents. The victim has been examined as P.W. 8 and her husband is P.W. 1, P.W. 2, 4 and 7 are her sister-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. P.W. 3 and 6 are two neighbourers and P.W. 5 is a co-villager. The medical officer examining the respondent is P.W. 11 and who examined the victim is P.W. 10. The victim has been examined as P.W. 8 and her husband is P.W. 1, P.W. 2, 4 and 7 are her sister-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. P.W. 3 and 6 are two neighbourers and P.W. 5 is a co-villager. The medical officer examining the respondent is P.W. 11 and who examined the victim is P.W. 10. P.W. 13 is the principal investigating officer whereas P.W, 12 has done some formal part of the investigation towards the closure. 3. The trial court upon analysis of evidence on record as well as appreciating" circumstances as those emanate there-from has arrived at a conclusion that the sole testimony of the victim is not cogent, reliable and trustworthy so as to warrant a conviction against the respondent and according to the trial court no such material corroboration stands to provide support to the evidence of the victim, P.W. 8. With such finding, the trial court has extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent. 4. 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.8 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.8. 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 and the same therefore, calls for interference. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the finding of the trial court which according to him is based on proper appreciation of evidence. According to him, the trial court has taken all the circumstances as those emanate from the evidence and 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 prosecution is unassailable. 6. According to him, the trial court has taken all the circumstances as those emanate from the evidence and 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 prosecution is unassailable. 6. 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 and 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 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 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. Keeping in mind, the aforesaid settled position of law as well as rival submission let's now proceed to approach the evidence let in by the prosecution in order to answer the question of complicity of the respondent in commission of offence in which he stood charged. The principal witness for the prosecution is P.W. 8, the victim. It is her evidence that during night, she was sleeping at the veranda along with her children when her husband had gone to the mango tope. She further states that around mid night, respondent came and lie over her. It is stated that she was then though pregnant, carrying 8 months, had shown resistance by the giving pushes to the respondent but it went unheeded. It is next stated that the respondent gagged her saree, threatened her to kill in case she raised hullah and then doing penetrative sexual assault left the place. It is stated that she was then though pregnant, carrying 8 months, had shown resistance by the giving pushes to the respondent but it went unheeded. It is next stated that the respondent gagged her saree, threatened her to kill in case she raised hullah and then doing penetrative sexual assault left the place. Admittedly the respondent and the husband of the victim are agnatic brothers and their house adjoins one another. The parent-in-laws of the victim were living in a separate house. It is then stated that after some time the respondent left the place; P.W. 8, the informant, her parent-in-laws and others asked the respondent about the incident which he denied. P.W. 1, the husband of the victim is stated to have arrived when he was also told about the incident by P.W. 8. As it appears the narration of the incident right from the beginning given in the F.I.R. Ext. 5 in the sequence does not tally with the evidence of P. W. 8 and there remains material variations. When Ext. 5 finds mention that the respondent first caught hold of her and sat over her and she raised hullah for which the respondent gagged and threatened her to kill; it is the evidence, that the respondent first came and lie over her which was resisted by giving pushes whereafter the respondent gagged P.W. 8 and threatened her to kill. It is the F.I.R. version that P.W. 8 first informed the parent-in-Laws and brother-in-law who went to call the respondent and wanted to know everything from respondent which he denied. This is not deposed to in that way during evidence. Rather, it is the evidence that when parent-in-laws were told respondent was there and they asked him about the incident. When it is stated in the F.I.R. that brother-in-law was informed, during trial it has been given a go bye. Similarly about panchayati nothing is stated in evidence. The victim is a married lady having children and the incident is said to have taken in a place which was open i.e. the outdoor of veranda of the house during night which was a moonlit one as stated by P.W.4. Similarly about panchayati nothing is stated in evidence. The victim is a married lady having children and the incident is said to have taken in a place which was open i.e. the outdoor of veranda of the house during night which was a moonlit one as stated by P.W.4. From that doubt arises in mind as to how the same could not attract notice of any, even the children aged around nine and six years who were sleeping by the side that too at a distance of few cubits from her. The open place is adjacent to the village road within the visible range from the houses of other neighbourers and when it is stated that many other villagers were sleeping like that because it was summer then. It is stated by the victim that the penetrative sexual assault was for about half an hour duration and at that time respondent had embarrassed the victim by putting his hands on her back. It is the version of the victim that she was gagged. However, in para-5 of the deposition of victim it is seen that she had stated that the respondent removed her saree and blouse and kept those by her side. So, when such process would be going on, the question of gagging becomes doubtful and this could not have taken place within a fraction of second. All these, rather tend to show the nod from the side of the victim. When it is again stated by P. W. 8 that one Dinabandhu Hial was sitting on the front veranda during the occurrence, it raises further doubt in mind as to how he could not even know about the incident. The explanation of victim that the house of Dinabandhu was not visible in the facts and circumstances of the case is not acceptable when she initially stated to have raised hullah. Though it is said that after the incident a panchayati was attempted, in the first-version in writing by the victim under Ext. 5, there is no mention of convening of the same. In view of all these, the evidence of P.W.8 do not appear to be above board so as to be accepted without some corroboration. The features thus stand to raise eye brows when the consideration comes for acceptance of the solitary evidence of the victim as regards the incident. 5, there is no mention of convening of the same. In view of all these, the evidence of P.W.8 do not appear to be above board so as to be accepted without some corroboration. The features thus stand to raise eye brows when the consideration comes for acceptance of the solitary evidence of the victim as regards the incident. Under the circumstances, she cannot be stamped as a wholly reliable and trustworthy witness, so as to fasten the guilt upon the respondent simply basing on the same as the other suspicions features described stare. 8. Now let's search for the corroboration from the evidence on record if any. P.W. 1 being the husband has stated that there was trouble with the respondent eight days prior to the incident, when he had asked his wife to go for sexual intercourse with him and for that also a meeting had been convened wherein the respondent had given in writing not to commit such mistake again. But such an important fact is not stated by any of the prosecution witnesses including the victim P.W. 8, when there was no reason for such suppression Even the F.I.R. does not find mention of such fact. In FIR even about the later panchayati called for the purpose where the respondent denied the charge levelled against him is not stated. However, the husband of P.W. 1 states that the said panchayati was convened the next day. Next, P.W.2 the sister-in-law of the victim states that the victim had been to her house and narrated the incident before her parents who called the respondent and asked about it, when he denied. Interestingly she is not saying that P.W. 8 had disclosed about the incident to her. This again shows a departure from ordinary and normal conduct of a female that too a married one with children that she instead of liking to tell about these things to another female being available would choose the elderly males for the disclosure without feeling shy. P.W. 4 father-in-law of the victim at one time states that on Tuesday panchayat was called but he next states to have not disclosed the incident to anybody till lodging of the F.I.R. Evidence of mother-in-law P.W. 7 also does not provide support to the prosecution case in these regard to reconcile in any way with the deficiency in the evidence of P.W.8. Her evidence is that after hearing they went to victim's house and asked respondent about the incident where husband of victim arrived. This contradicts the evidence of victim that the respondent after the incident left the place. Regarding panchayati, her evidence is quite in variance with others. Thus no such required corroboration to the evidence of victim comes in. In view of all these, this Court is unable to express any disagreement with the finding of trial court which rather appears to have been arrived at upon proper analysis of the evidence being appreciated with all other surrounding circumstances in holding that in this case there has been failure on the part of the prosecution to bring home the charge against the respondent. Resultantly, the Government Appeal stands dismissed.