A.K. Parichha, J.
1. State is in appeal against the order of acquittal of the Respondent recorded by Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1990.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal can be narrated summarily as follows:
On 26.11.1989 at about 8.00 P.M. while the victim was moving towards Kumijhola Nala of village-Kutrabeda, the Respondent caught hold of her and threatening at the point of a knife, dragged her to some distance and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. After the sexual intercourse the Respondent left the spot and the victim girl went to the Nala, washed the mud from her body and clothes, returned home weeping and narrated the incident to her family members. The father of the victim girl convened Panch on 28; 11.1989 and in front of that Panchayati the victim girl alleged that the Respondent committed rape on her and the Respondent also confessed to have done so. The matter was then reported in Narayana Patna Police Station on 29.11.1989 vide F.I.R. Ext. 1 and the police authorities investigated into the case. On completion of investigation accused was charge-sheeted under Section 376, I.P.C. and was tried in the above noted Sessions Case. The plea of the Respondent was one of the complete denial and false implication.
3. To prove the charge prosecution examined eight witnesses; P.W. 1 being the victim girl, P.W. 2 her father, P.Ws. 3, 4 & 5 the villagers, who were present in the Panchayati, P.W. 6, an eye witness to the occurrence, P.W. 8, the Medical Officer, who examined the victim girl and P.W. 7, the Investigating Officer. Besides oral evidence prosecution also proved the F.I.R. (Ext. I), the seizure lists (Exts. 2 and 3), under which the clothes and broken bangles of the victim girl were seized, seizure list Ext. 4 regarding seizure of the School Leaving Certificate of the victim girl, the reports of the doctor Exts. 6&7andthe Zimanama Ext. 5.TheSaree, blouse, inner cloth and broken bangles of the victim girl were produced and marked as M.Os. I to IV respectively. Respondent did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. On consideration of the evidence on record, Learned Trial Judge came to hold that the Respondent committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl with her consent. He accordingly acquitted the Respondent of the charge with the observation that in view of the consent of the victim girl, who was a major, the ingredients of rape as contemplated under Section 375, I.P.C. were not established. Challenging the said order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Mr. Mishra, Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-State submits that the conclusion with regard to the age of the victim girl and her consent is neither in accordance with the materials on record nor in tune with the settled principle of law. To support his contention, Mr. Mishra cited the cases of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat : 1983CriLJ1096 ; Visveswaran v. State Rep. By S.D.M 2003 (3) Supreme 566 and State of Orissa v. Purnachandra Sadangi 60 (1995) CLT 236. He also places the relevant portion of the statement given by P.Ws. 1 and 8.
5. Mr. H.M. Dhal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, argues that an order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is not to be disturbed by the Appellate Court unless there is gross perversity in the approach of the Trial Court or the conclusions drawn are totally against the evidence on record or are based on approach unsupported by law. He submits that the Appellate Court cannot reassess the evidence and take a different view than the view taken by the Trial Court, particularly when two views are possible on the available evidence and circumstances. According to him, the approach of the Trial Court in recording the conclusions that the victim girl is major and had consent in the alleged sexual intercourse are based on evidence and established judicial norm. To support his contention, Mr. Dhal cited the Cases of Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujurat : 1996CriLJ2867 and State of U.P. v. Gambhir Singh and Ors. : 2005CriLJ2579 .
6. Before delving into the merit of the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, it would be profitable to indicate the evidence available on record in short. P.W. 1, the victim girl, stated about the Respondent's dragging her and committing sexual intercourse with her against her will P.W. 6, the alleged eyewitness, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.Ws. 2, & 3 stated about the allegation of the victim girl and confession of the Respondent before the Panchayati. P.Ws. 4 and 5 stated that the victim girl alleged about the rape before the Panchayati, but the Respondent did not say anything before the Panchayati. The doctor, P.W. 8, opined that the victim girl was 15 years of age, but admitted that she had well developed physique and was habituated to sexual intercourse. He also indicated that there was absolutely no mark of injury or violence on the person of the victim girl or the accused. The School Leaving Certificate of the victim girl, seized under Ext. 4, indicated that her date of birth was 10.5.1970. There were also broken tangles, which were seized from the spot under seizure list Ext. 3.
7. Considering the above noted evidence, Learned Trial Court held that despite absence of injury on the person of the victim girl and Respondent, the statement of the victim girl about the sexual intercourse was substantially corroborated by the seizure or the broken bangles at the spot and the statement of P.Ws. 2 and 3 about the confession of the Respondent before the Panchayati. As has been said in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (supra) and Dinesh @ Budha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 33 OCR (SC) 830, the corroboration to the statement of the victim girl is not sine qua non as in an offence of rape hardly one can expect eye witness. Moreover, the statement of the victim girl has to be considered reliably for the reason that in Indian society an women whether married or unmarried would not like to tarnish her own image with a false allegation of sexual intercourse on her by an outsider, because by such discloser she would not only defame herself in the society, but also ruin her chance of marriage or her married life. Moreover, as has been observed in the case of State of Maharastra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain : 1990CriLJ889 the victim girl in a case of rape does not stand in the same footing as that of an accomplice and so corroboration to her statement is not necessary as is required in the case of accomplice. A word of caution was, however, noted that the evidence of victim girl should be carefully scrutinized so as to avoid the chance of false implication of the accused. In this regard, it was said that unless a strong motive on the part of the victim girl to implicate the accused falsely is available, the statement of the victim girl is to be accepted as reliable.
8. In the present case, there is no evidence to s-how any strong motive on the part of the victim girl to falsely implicate the accused. Her statement about the alleged sexual intercourse finds corroboration from the recovery of the broken bangles from the spot and the statement of some of the Panch witnesses, who spoke about the confession of the Respondent before the Panchayati. Taking note of these evidence, it can be concluded that there was in fact sexual intercourse by Respondent on the victim girl on the alleged date and time of occurrence. The conclusion of Learned Trial Court in this regard being very much in tune with the evidence on record as well as the established principle of law does not call for any interference.
9. The next point for consideration is the age of the victim girl and her consent in the alleged incident. In this regard, Learned Trial Court accepted the entry in the School Register and the School Leaving Certificate seized under the seizure list, Ext. 4 and held that the victim girl was 19 1/2 years old. P.W. 1, who did not give any specific statement about her age or date of birth. Her father, P.W. 2, could not say anything about the age of the victim girl and the other witnesses also did not say anything about the age of the victim girl. Doctor gave the age of the victim girl as 15 years without conducting any ossification or necessary medical test. But the way, in which he has described the victim girl in the report and his statement, it was really difficult to accept that she was a girl of 15 years of age. Ext. 4 indicated that the School Admission Register and the School Living Certificate bore the date of birth of the victim girl as 10.5.1970. This was the only relevant and reliable piece of evidence and Learned Trial Court had good reason to conclude that the victim girl was more than 19 years old.
10. The consent of the victim girl was inferred by Learned Trial Court from the fact that there was absolutely no injury on her person as well as on the person of the Respondent. The victim girl in her statement said that the Respondent forcibly dragged her to a considerable distance, laid her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse with her despite her protest and resistance. She stated that because of the dragging and forcibly intercourse, she sustained rapture, injury on her foot and her bangles were broken leading to bleeding injury on her hand. The doctor, who examined the victim only four days after the occurrence, did not find any injury on hand, leg and did not notice any fresh rapture, though there was allegation that rape was committed on the ground. The doctor also found no injury on any part of the body of Respondent Learned Trial Court observed that if the victim girl was really dragged against her will and was forcibly ravished despite her resistance, then some injuries must have been there on the victim as well as the Respondent. Because, there was absolutely no injury on the person of the victim and the Respondent. Learned Trial Court concluded that there was consent on the part of the victim girl. There is no legal proposition that lack of injury on the person of the victim girl or the accused would presuppose the consent of the victim girl, but when the victim girl specifically speaks about injuries caused to her during the occurrence and no injury was in fact found, then her statement about forcible co-habitation has to be looked with suspicious and the Court would be reasonable in drawing conclusion of consent. Of course, from the circumstances available, two different views are possible, but it has been pointed out in the cases of Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (supra) and State of U.P. v. Gambhir Singh and Ors. (supra) relied by Mr. Dhal that when two views are possible the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted and the view taken by the Trial Court has to be honoured. Confronted with this legal proposition, it is felt prudent to accept the view taken by the Learned Trial Court that the victim girl had consent in the alleged sexual intercourse. Once this proposition is accepted, the accused automatically becomes entitled to benefit of doubt.
11. The order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Trial Court is not tainted with perversity or illegality, so cannot be inferred in this appeal, as an order of acquittal is not normally to be disturbed, unless gross illegality or perversity is there in the approach.
12. In the result, therefore, the Government Appeal is found to be without any merit and is dismissed.