JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The judgment of acquittal in S.T. No. 268 of 2002, whereby the sole accused namely, Vijay Oraon has been acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him, has been challenged both by the State and the informant-victim; Acquittal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 has been filed by the State and Criminal Revision No. 835 of 2003 has been preferred by the informant-victim. 2. Written report of the informant, on the basis of which Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 72 of 2002 was registered under Section 376 IPC against the respondent-accused, discloses that on 03.10.2002 at about 8 a.m. when she had gone to Thathia Pahar with Dulari Kumari and Sanju Kumari for wooden logs, one boy named, Vijay Oraon of village-Porha who was grazing cattle in the forest came there and forced her into the bushes. He put her down there and committed rape. When she cried both of her friends came there, whereupon the accused threatened them and fled away. When she informed her mother and other villagers, they asked her not to lodge a case and a panchayati was held in the village in which the elder brother of Vijay Oraon was called, however, he did not accept the suggestion of panchayat. The informant claimed that thereafter, the villagers instructed her to lodge a case with the police. On the basis of her written report dated 10.10.2002, Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 72 of 2002 was registered on 10.10.2002, against Vijay Oraon for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 3. After investigation, the case as lodged by the informant was found true and accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offence. During the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and written report, formal FIR, injury report etc. were produced and proved by the prosecution. The accused also proved the certified copy of FIR of Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 70 of 2002 dated 09.10.2002 and certified copy of bail order in Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 70 of 2002 dated 24.10.2002. On an appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, the trial court came to record a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of rape upon the victim. On the point of identification of the accused, the trial court held that it was highly doubtful. 4. Heard. 5. Mr. On an appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, the trial court came to record a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of rape upon the victim. On the point of identification of the accused, the trial court held that it was highly doubtful. 4. Heard. 5. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. assailing the judgment of acquittal contends that minor discrepancies in the evidence of the victim does not make her an unreliable witness. The absence of any external or internal injury on the person of the victim girl stands explained on account of delay in medical examination of the victim girl, and if, the presence of the accused is established at the place of occurrence, the evidence of the victim girl must be accepted by the court. 6. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the informant appearing in Criminal Revision No. 835 of 2003 has also assailed the impugned judgment in S.T. No.268 of 2002 on similar grounds. The learned counsel has further contended that the victim being of the age of 15-16 years was apprehensive and fearing adverse consequences, followed the advice of the villagers and did not lodge complaint with the police immediately. The learned counsel, thus, submits that delay in lodging FIR has been properly explained by the prosecution. 7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, reiterating the stand taken in the trial court, submits that there is no compelling reason to take a view different from the one taken by the trial court. Supporting the impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2003 in S.T. No. 268 of 2002, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the Acquittal Appeal as well as the Criminal Revision petition. 8. Let us first consider, whether the prosecution has established the identity of the accused who allegedly committed rape upon the victim girl. The alleged date of occurrence is 03.10.2002 at about 8 a.m. and the FIR was lodged on 10.10.2002. The incident as narrated by the informant in her written report discloses that one boy from village-Porha dragged her into the bushes and committed rape upon her. She has claimed that her other friends namely, Dulari Kumari and Sanju Kumari also came there and the accused after threatening them fled away. The informant has named the accused in the FIR. The incident as narrated by the informant in her written report discloses that one boy from village-Porha dragged her into the bushes and committed rape upon her. She has claimed that her other friends namely, Dulari Kumari and Sanju Kumari also came there and the accused after threatening them fled away. The informant has named the accused in the FIR. However, the victim has admitted that she did not know the accused or any other person of village-Porha, from before. This, the learned A.P.P. has tried to explain by asserting that after the identity of the accused was established and the panchayat was held, the victim came to know the name of the accused, and that is why, she has named the accused in the FIR. The evidence of the victim, however, when examined with her written statement dated 10.10.2002 does not disclose, how she came to know the name of the accused. Moreover, the victim has failed to explain how she came to know that the accused who sexually assaulted her belonged to village-Porha and unless, it is revealed from the prosecution evidence, the story of panchayat in which the elder brother of the respondent-accused was called cannot be believed. Story of panchayati as narrated in her written report, is conspicuously absent in her examination-in-chief. None of the persons who participated in the panchayat has been examined by the prosecution. Another story propounded by the prosecution that after the victim informed the villagers about the incident the villagers went on to search the accused, is also not proved in as much as, no one has named a person who disclosed the name of the respondent-accused as the one who had gone to forest for grazing animals. It has also come on record that several persons had gone there for grazing animals. 9. Ignoring the delay in lodging of FIR and absence of internal injury on the private part of the victim, absence of external injury on the body of the victim creates serious doubt to the manner of occurrence as disclosed by the informant. The informant-P.W.9 stated in the court that she sustained injuries on her back, waist and leg and in course of occurrence her back got scratched and blood was oozing, however, the Doctor-P.W.10 who examined her categorically denied that there was any external injury on the body of the victim. The informant-P.W.9 stated in the court that she sustained injuries on her back, waist and leg and in course of occurrence her back got scratched and blood was oozing, however, the Doctor-P.W.10 who examined her categorically denied that there was any external injury on the body of the victim. Even if the injuries had healed, there must have been injury marks on the body of the victim which were found absent by the doctor. It further appears that, P.W.9 deposed in the court that she had gone to identify the accused in the jail and on that basis she identified him in the court. She has further admitted that she was ill between 03.10.2002 to 10.10.2002 and for that reason she did not lodge complaint before the police. This statement of the victim in the court completely contradicts her explanation in the written report dated 10.10.2002 for not lodging the FIR immediately. 10. We further find that prior enmity between the family of the victim and the brother of the accused has been established. It has come in the evidence that the brother of the respondent-accused lodged a criminal case just one day prior to lodging of the FIR in the present case. The trial court has also observed that false implication of the accused due to enmity between two families cannot be ruled out. After re-appreciating the entire prosecution evidence, particularly evidence of the victim-P.W.9, we concur with the view taken by the trial court that P.W.9 is not a reliable witness. Her evidence suffers from serious inconsistencies and contradictions. The prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused who allegedly committed the offence under Section 376 IPC. 11. Having scanned the entire evidence once again, we do not find any compelling reason to take a different view and disturb the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court on appreciation of entire evidence available on record in its right perspective. 12. The net result is that Acquittal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 835 of 2003 is also dismissed.