JUDGMENT : N.W. SAMBRE, J. 1. In Sessions Trial No.11 of 2006 learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akot acquitted the respondent/accused for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide his judgment and order dated 20.12.2006. As such, this appeal by the State against acquittal. 2. The prosecution case as noticed from the available record is, on 21.12.2005 PW1 prosecutrix while returning from the field, was caught hold by the respondent/accused in nullah (stream) and dragged her towards slope of stream and committed the offence of rape. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. K.H. Joshi for the appellant/State, while trying to make out the case for showing indulgence by this Court, invites attention to the evidence of PW1 victim so as to submit that learned Judge of the Court below has committed an error in believing and appreciating the evidence of said witness. According to her, upon re-appreciation of the evidence of the said victim, it is a case of conviction. 4. None appears for the respondent/accused. 5. Upon perusal of the evidences on record it is required to be noted that PW1 victim was examined at Exhibit 22 and she has narrated that while returning back from the field, respondent/accused has committed the offence, in question. She has in categorical terms stated that she had given a call and PW4 Purushottam Gawate, who was going to Hiwarkhed by the same way, had come there and narrates about scuffle between Purushottam and the respondent/accused. She has stated that there are trees and thorny shrubs on the place of incident. She has further stated that it is difficult to pave the way from the said spot because of thorny shrubs and bushes and the person passing from the said way is not visible from the spot of the incident. It is also clarified that a person standing at a distance of 15 feet is not visible from the spot of the incident. She then claimed that PW4 Purushottam responded to her call. She claimed that she had seen PW4 Purushottam for the first time when he gave a kick blow on the forehead of the respondent/accused whereas in earlier part of evidence she narrated that it is she who had called Purushottam to the spot of the incident. 6. She then claimed that PW4 Purushottam responded to her call. She claimed that she had seen PW4 Purushottam for the first time when he gave a kick blow on the forehead of the respondent/accused whereas in earlier part of evidence she narrated that it is she who had called Purushottam to the spot of the incident. 6. Apart from above, the evidence of husband of the victim, who has stated on hearsay basis, claims that when there was intercourse, the victim was enjoying the same. 7. The evidence of PW4 Purushottam in the aforesaid background if is appreciated, it is to be noted that the same is required to be disbelieved particularly in the background of the evidences of the husband of the victim, the victim herself and the alleged political enmity. 8. Apart from above, though the narration of the spot of the incident which is claimed to be a thorny shrub, there is an absence of any injury on the body parts of the victim. The victim claims to be aged about 28 years and no internal injury was noticed on her body. 9. In the aforesaid background, the view expressed by learned Judge of the Court below while acquitting the respondent/accused, in my opinion, appears to be a plausible view and it cannot be termed to be an impossible view. In view thereof, in absence of any perversity or any illegality, no case for interference is made out. As such, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed.