ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10th August, 2017 pissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V-cum-F.T.C., Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 2009, whereunder the sole accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the prosecution case based on written report of prosecutrix, Saraswati Devi, she was sweeper working in running room at Gomo. On 2nd February, 2009, the accused called her to clean adjacent room of Room No. 16, then she came but the accused closed the door and tide her mouth with her Sari and committed rape. She was threatened not to tell to anyone, otherwise she would be transferred and would he killed. She stated that she is a widow having got operated for appendicitis and stone, but due to overpower of accused she kept mum. She told her father about the occurrence on 6th February, 2009, whereafter F.I.R was lodged. Upon institution of F.I.R and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Seven witnesses were adduced on behalf of prosecution during trial. PW 1- Ramawati Devi PW 2-Shakuntla Devi PW 3- Kamali Devi PW 4- Bihari Mahato PW 5-Saraswati Devi PW 6-Rajeshwar Prasad Singh PW 7- Dr. Ajita Mallik The statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the defence of the accused is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case as he complained to Superior Official against Saraswati Devi for her acts of indiscipline. The prosecution also adduced the following documentary, evidences : Ext. - 1 - written report. Ext. -1/1 - endorsement made by S.I. M. Kispotta on written report. Ext.-l/2 - endorsement made by O.C., Topchanchi P.S. S.I. Binay Kumar Singh. Ex.2 & 2/2 - Signature of Binay Kumar Singh on formal F.I.R. Ext.-3 - interim report. The defence adduced these six witnesses and also the following documentary evidences. D.W.-1- Manoj Kumar Ghansi. D.W.-2- Raghuveer Thakur. D.W.-3- Rohan Mahato. D.W.-4- Kamlesh Kumar Keshri. D,W.-5- Mahendra Rawani, accused himself. D.W.-6- Rajnath Mishra. Mark-X - attendance register of the month of February. Ext.-A - F.I.R of Topchanchi (HaIiharpur) P.S Case No. 121 of 2008. Ext.-A/1 - F.I.R of Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 148 of 2005. Ext. D.W.-1- Manoj Kumar Ghansi. D.W.-2- Raghuveer Thakur. D.W.-3- Rohan Mahato. D.W.-4- Kamlesh Kumar Keshri. D,W.-5- Mahendra Rawani, accused himself. D.W.-6- Rajnath Mishra. Mark-X - attendance register of the month of February. Ext.-A - F.I.R of Topchanchi (HaIiharpur) P.S Case No. 121 of 2008. Ext.-A/1 - F.I.R of Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 148 of 2005. Ext. - B - Charge-sheet of Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 121 of 2008. Ext. - B/1 - Charge-sheet of Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 148 of 2005. Ext-C - Authorization letter No. FLS/422/Misc. Dated 27.4.2017. Ext.-D - Forwarding of R.N. Mishra Foreman. Ext.-D/1 - Endorsement of issuing S.F-II with writing of P.K. Sinha. Ext.-D/2 - Receiving of complaint vide No. 482 dated 11.02.2009. Ext.-E - Original notice of SF-II of Case No. ELS 421/3/39/09. Ext.-E/1 - Enquiry report. Ext.-E/2 - Order of Sri Kale Singh dated 13.05.2009. Ext.- E/3 - Notice dated 22.05.2009 issued by Sri Kale Singh to Saraswati Devi. Ext.-E/4 - Order of Asstt. Elect. Engineer (O.P.). Ext.-E/5 - Order of Sri P.K. Sinha, Appellate Officer. Ext. – E/6 - Order of Previsioning Authority Sri Gautam Banerjee dated 26.11.2009. Ext-F - three pages of attendance sheet of the month of February, 2009. Ext.-G - Application of complain made by Mahendra Rawani to Chief Karshan Foreman. Ext.-H - Signature of Ramkishore Mahato on the application to Foreman. Ext.-H/1 -Signature of Dev Rani on the application to Foreman. Ext.-H/2 -Signature of Manoj Kumar on the application to Foreman. Ext.-H/3 -Signature of Hulash on the application to Foreman. Ext.-H/4 - Signature of Imam uddin Ansari on the application to Foreman. 4. P.Ws 1, 2 and 3, namely, Ramawati Devi, Shakuntla Devi and Kamali Devi are hearsay witnesses, who have not seen the occurrence, but have deposed only on the basis of the information given by the prosecutrix. As per the statement of PW 3, no occurrence took place in her presence and there was no injury on the person of informant. As per PW 4-father of the informant, on 8th February, 2009 at 11:00 O'clock she told about the occurrence that led to institution of F.I.R. He had not seen the accused prior to this case. PW 5 is the prosecutrix, who during her deposition stated that on 2nd February, 2009 at 9:30 in the morning she was cleaning Electric Driver Running Room at 2nd floor. PW 5 is the prosecutrix, who during her deposition stated that on 2nd February, 2009 at 9:30 in the morning she was cleaning Electric Driver Running Room at 2nd floor. The accused was present there and closed the room, Sari was put in her mouth and he committed rape. She was also threatened not to tell it to anyone, otherwise she would be transferred. She also deposed that while she was coming down from ladder then she told about the occurrence to P.Ws 1, 2 and 3. She also deposed that after six days she told about the occurrence to her father. She was medically examined. According to her, she did not say about the occurrence to anyone on that day. She told about the occurrence to Foremen after eight days. The place of occurrence is adjacent room of Room No. 16 which is office room. There was no driver at that point of time. She stated that accused had put his finger in her mouth, but she did not bite. She also did not oppose and attempt to save herself. At para 13, she stated that on the date of occurrence she went to her Sasural but she did not disclose the matter to anyone. She further stated that she did her duty for whole day. She had been working since five years in the Running Room and there are several persons and Officer-in-charge of Hariharpur Police Station who reside there, but he was not there on that day. She took her salary at 10:00 O'clock on the date of occurrence. She further stated that she had not shown the clothes she was wearing at the time of occurrence to the police. She accepted that the accused had complained against her what she moves on motorcycle with outsider but that fellow is her villager. According to her, in Running Room 70 to 80 persons reside and they often come and go. PW 6 is the Investigating Officer, who identified the signature of Officer-In-charge on formal F.I.R., forwarding on written report and proved endorsement and has also stated that he recorded the statement of PW 4-father of the informant. He did not take statement of any independent witness. PW 7 is Dr. Ajita Mallik, who examined the victim lady on 12th February, 2009 and found the following injuries. He did not take statement of any independent witness. PW 7 is Dr. Ajita Mallik, who examined the victim lady on 12th February, 2009 and found the following injuries. In the column of history of the patient P-3+0 all N.D. Last child 6 years of age. P.V. Examination-vagina admits two fingers, condition of hymen; torn old tear. No external or internal injury was found. No foreign hair found in private part. No stain either blood or seminal found on any part of the body. Examination Report has been marked as Ext.-3. 5. Defence examined six witnesses. D.W.-1 is Manoj Kumar who deposed that he had been working since 1999 in Running Room as 'Baira' and Running Room is of two storage building, one ground floor and other first floor and total about 40 rooms are there. They are used for rest of Railway Drivers and there is arrangement of rest and lunch, dinner etc. About 30 staffs were working in 2009 and accused was In-charge of staff, his duty was 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. Informant was also one of the staffs and she also used to come late, for which she was warned by the accused. On 2nd February, 2009, informant had proceeded to take pay at 9:30 a.m. and returned at 2:00 p.m. with other staffs. He further stated that in Room No. 13 Officer-in-charge of Hariharpur Police Station was residing with permission of DRM and on that day Foreman had visited there. The accused had complained about the conduct of informant. Thereafter he was asked to submit written complaint. Informant had called outsiders and committed scuffle with the accused then. Within 3 to 4 days, she informed the Foreman. D.W. 2 is Raghuveer Thakur who deposed that he had been working from 2002 to 2013 in Running Room as Waiter'. According to him, there are 40-41 rooms in the running room and about 32-33 staffs working there. Informant used to come late, due to which drivers made complaint about cleaning against her. She always used to reply on being asked to work properly by the accused and that she is not his servant rather she is servant of Railway. On 2nd February, 2009 she along with other staffs collected pay between 9:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. and returned after taking pay after 2:00 Hours. She always used to reply on being asked to work properly by the accused and that she is not his servant rather she is servant of Railway. On 2nd February, 2009 she along with other staffs collected pay between 9:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. and returned after taking pay after 2:00 Hours. D.W.3 is Rohan Mahato, In-charge of Running Room who has brought attendance register of Running Room of staff, but attendance register of Driver and Assistant Driver was not found for that period. D.W. 4 is Kamlesh Kumar Keshri, Superintendent of DRM office. He had produced 12 pages documents and application of the informant with forwarding dated 4th February, 2009, which were marked as Ext.-D. He has also adduced Exts.-D, D/1, D/2 and E Series relating to forwarding and order of inquiry report. He has also proved punishment notice to the informant as Ext.-E/3 and order on the same as Ext.-E/4. The appellate officer's order had also been adduced as Ext.-E/5. On revision by the informant, order had been passed, which has been marked as Ext. - E/6. During his cross-examination, he deposed that these papers concluded that the informant had broken discipline and she had been imposed with stoppage of two increments. D.W.5, Mahendra Rawani is accused himself, who has denied the allegation. According to him, the informant used to come late regularly and she was warned for that reason. He further deposed that the informant and some other staffs had gone with his permission at 9:00 a.m. 10 collect the pay. On 5th February, 2009, he informed the Assistant Engineer Electric Operation against the informant. She heard this fact and called 15-20 persons from village side and caught his collar and snatched his mobile and Rs. 3,000/- as also golden chain. He had proved the written complaint received by the Foreman as Ext.-G. He had identified signatures on souse applications as Exts. H series. D.W.6, Rajnath Mishra, was Chief Coursion Foreman working at Gomoh since 2009. He had deposed that accused had complained against the informant. On 5th February, 2009, when he inquired he was told that there was scuffle with the accused. He had identified his forwarding on the application as Ext.-D. He further deposed that in departmental examination two increments of the informant was stopped. 6. He had deposed that accused had complained against the informant. On 5th February, 2009, when he inquired he was told that there was scuffle with the accused. He had identified his forwarding on the application as Ext.-D. He further deposed that in departmental examination two increments of the informant was stopped. 6. Learned trial Court analyzed the evidence on record in detail and came to the considered view that though in a case of such nature even the statement of sole prosecutrix is sufficient to bring home the charges but the surrounding circumstances, the delay in lodging the F.I.R., absence of medical evidence and absence of any corroborative evidence only lead to the conclusion that the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code had not been made out. No sign of rape was found during medical evidence. Other prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have not deposed that she at once communicated about the occurrence to the Officer-in-charge, though all these three witnesses were going to Officer-in-charge, Hariharpur Police Station, who was staying in Room No. 13. He could not know about the occurrence of such rape in adjacent rooms, i.e., Room No. 15 or 16 or 17, though all these rooms are in vicinity. From these discussions, it appeared to the learned Court that only when complaint was made by the accused against the prosecutrix on the basis of which departmental proceeding was initiated, that the case had been lodged to create a counter case. In absence of any concrete evidence of rape, the defence version appeared to be more probable. Based on these findings, the accused was acquitted of the charges. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the statement of prosecutrix primarily to show that the allegation relating to rape was duly proved by her. He also submitted that she was a widow and had been subjected to threatening and therefore there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. However, considering the totality of materials on record the offence of rape was made out. Learned trial Court had committed an error in acquitting the accused persons. 8. Learned A.P.P for State has supported the impugned judgment. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and also taken note of the relevant material evidence as discussed by learned trial Court above. Learned trial Court had committed an error in acquitting the accused persons. 8. Learned A.P.P for State has supported the impugned judgment. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and also taken note of the relevant material evidence as discussed by learned trial Court above. From analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, few things are clear (i) though the incidence is stated to be of 2nd February, 2009 at 9:30 a.m., but it was only after six days the F.I.R. was lodged after the informant narrated it to her father on 6th February, 2009. (ii) Prosecutrix remained on duty for whole day but did not complain it to anyone. (iii) Apart from that, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are hearsay witnesses who have accepted that they had not seen the occurrence. PW 3 had deposed that there was no injury on the person of the informant. (iv) As per the medical report, no sign of rape on her nor any injuries on any part of the body was found. (v) On the other hand, on the complaint of accused, departmental proceedings were held against the informant. She was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of two increments which were upheld by the appellate authority as well. (vi) Documents have been adduced by the defence to show that there were several persons staying in the running room which consist of 40 rooms, but complainant did not complaint it to anyone nor to any other member of the office. In the wake of such evidence on record, learned trial Court had reason to acquit the accused of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as the prosecution had failed to establish it beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 10. We do not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.