JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the State and the private respondent on the prayer for condonation of delay of 45 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal made through I.A. No.1427/2019. 2. Having considered the grounds urged and the submissions of the parties, delay is condoned. I.A. No. 1427/2019 stands disposed of. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the State and the private respondent on the merits of the challenge to the judgment of acquittal of respondent no.2 for the charge of rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C. by the impugned judgment dated 24th August 2018 rendered in Session Case No.19/2009 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Rajmahal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that altogether 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution which include the Doctor (P.W.9), informant/victim (P.W.5) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.11). The evidence of the victim in particular substantiates the case of rape which continued over a period of two years. It is submitted that a Panchayati was held and a fine of Rs.18,000/- was imposed upon the accused/private respondent herein. The incidence took place in a lonely place and as such other prosecution witnesses cannot be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Learned trial court has disbelieved the testimony of the victim though the evidence on record substantiates the ingredients of Section 375 of the I.P.C. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial court should be re-appreciated in the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the State and the private respondent have opposed the prayer and submitted that learned trial court has considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and rightly acquitted the accused of the charge of rape. As per the victim (P.W.5) she was 24 years old at the time of occurrence. As per her own testimony it would appear that physical relationship continued over a period of 2 years. Medical evidence does not indicate any forcible sexual intercourse nor any sperm was found in the vaginal swab of the victim by the Doctor (P.W.9). The story of fine of Rs.18,000/- has also been controverted by P.W.1 who says that Rs. 18,000/- has been fixed as ‘Dain Mehar’. Medical evidence does not indicate any forcible sexual intercourse nor any sperm was found in the vaginal swab of the victim by the Doctor (P.W.9). The story of fine of Rs.18,000/- has also been controverted by P.W.1 who says that Rs. 18,000/- has been fixed as ‘Dain Mehar’. Mother of the victim (P.W.3) in her cross-examination has stated that relationship between the victim and the appellant continued for 3-4 years and when he denied to marry her daughter, then she informed the police about rape. The victim (P.W.5) has also stated that accused told her that he has accepted her as a wife and established physical relationship with her for a period of 2 years and more. Victim continued physical relationship and did not inform anyone including her mother. As such, learned trial court has rightly considered it to be a case of consensual relationship between adults and acquitted the accused of the charges. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the State and the informant, gone through the relevant materials evidence on record and perused the impugned judgment. 7. As per the prosecution story of the victim (P.W.5), the appellant entered inside her house on 27th August 2006 and started kissing her. Thereafter, after lapse of four days when she was returning after attending the call of nature, he called her with the gesture and took her inside the house of Abu Bakar where no one was present and then he accepted her as wife and established physical relationship with her. That physical relationship was continued on the assurance of marriage, but he refused to solemnize marriage. When this fact was disclosed to the villagers, then on 22nd May 2008 under pressure the accused had taken her to the house but himself fled away leaving her at the house. A Panchayati was held on 8th June 2008 but the accused fled away prior to acceptance. It appears that 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution which include the informant/victim (P.W.5), the Doctor (P.W.9) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.11). P.W. 6, 7, 8 and 10 have not supported the case of the prosecutrix. A Panchayati was held on 8th June 2008 but the accused fled away prior to acceptance. It appears that 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution which include the informant/victim (P.W.5), the Doctor (P.W.9) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.11). P.W. 6, 7, 8 and 10 have not supported the case of the prosecutrix. P.W.5 victim has in her statement supported her prosecution story and stated that the physical relationship continued on the pretext of marriage, but after the accused denied to marry her, then a panchayati was held and a fine was imposed upon the accused who fled away prior to conclusion of Panchayati. Witness has accepted that she was 24 years of age at the time of occurrence. Her mother (P.W.3) has in cross-examination stated that accused had physical relationship for 3-4 years with her daughter and when the accused denied to marry with her daughter, then she was informed about the occurrence of rape. P.W.1 has also stated that the amount of Rs.18,000/- was fixed as ‘Dain Mehar’, whereas the victim has stated it to be a fine imposed upon the accused. P.W.2 has not been able to say as to what purpose Panchayati was held. No original paper of Panchayati was produced before the Court. Though victim had stated in her examination-in-chief that when she was raped in the house of Abu Bakar, she started crying and weeping, but no one of the prosecution witnesses had supported this version. The Doctor examined the victim on 30th September 2008 and did not find any presence of sperm in the vaginal swab of the victim. Victim has herself accepted in her testimony that accused accepted her as a wife and established physical relationship with her and that she was 24 years of age at the time of occurrence. Learned trial court has considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and rightly come to a finding that the charge of rape does not stand established against the sole accused. The prosecutrix as a silent consenting party in the physical relationship for 3-4 years has also been taken note. 8. Having considered the discussions on the material evidence on record and the submissions of the parties, we do not find any such perversity or error in the appreciation of evidence leading to acquittal of the appellant which deserves re-appreciation in the appeal. 8. Having considered the discussions on the material evidence on record and the submissions of the parties, we do not find any such perversity or error in the appreciation of evidence leading to acquittal of the appellant which deserves re-appreciation in the appeal. On acquittal there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. As such we do not find any ground made out to interfere with the impugned judgment. Acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. I.A. No.9194/2018 stands closed.