ORDER : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. This is an application preferred by the applicant under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.1.2017 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 66 of 2015 by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Mehsana. 2. Heard Mr. K.P Raval, learned APP for the applicant - State and perused the material evidence made available to this Court. 3. As per the prosecution version, the accused had taken the prosecutrix upon the motor cycle in his field for bringing butter milk where the accused had removed clothes of the prosecutrix and forcibly committed rape upon her. In order to prove the alleged offence, the prosecution has examined PW 1 - Dr. Parul Prabhudas Patel at Exh.9 who recorded the weight of the victim to be 28 kg and upon examination of the body of the prosecutrix, she recorded that there were no external marks of injury and no injury was noticed over the private parts and even hymen was found to be intact. 4. The complainant as well as victim stick to their versions and alleged that the accused eloped her over his motor cycle and taken her to his field where he removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and committed the rape. 5. On overall examination of the evidence made available to us during the course of hearing the present matters, it is noticed that learned trial Judge has recorded that upon lodging the complaint on the same day, physical examination of the prosecutrix was carried out by PW 1 wherein neither any injury was found over the external parts of the body nor any injury was found over the private parts and even her hymen was found to be intact. Under the circumstances, whatever testimony was given by the victim is not getting corroboration and taking into consideration her physical structure having weight of 28 kg only and that accused was young about 25 years of age and if rape has been committed forcibly upon the prosecutrix after removal of clothes in the open field, then external marks of injury over the body as well as the injury over the private parts would have been noticed and the said fact is not revealing from the medical examination which has been conducted on the day of incident and therefore explanation rendered by the accused that the father of the victim borrowed Rs. 35,000/- from him and in order to see that the said borrowed amount may not be paid back, he has been wrongly implicated in the alleged offence which explanation appears to be plausible. When oral testimony is not at all getting any sort of corroboration though physical examination was conducted on the same day on the prosecutrix, we are of the considered opinion that learned trial Judge has rightly not believed the evidence of the victim and thereby rightly acquitted the accused from the charge levelled against him which calls for no interference. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in grating leave to appeal as well as admitting the present appeal. 6. Even otherwise, this Court has also perused the impugned judgment and order wherein learned trial Judge has based his findings upon the evidence available on record and this Court has not noticed that any evidence which is available on record linking the accused with the crime in question is ignored. 7. In view of the above, leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the present appeal also stands dismissed.