Short Note : 1. In this appeal, the State of Madhya Pradesh has challenged the order of acquittal of the respondent Ramesh under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the 1st Additional Session Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 1971 decided on 15-3-1972. Held: Regarding the complicity of the respondent, the evidence is not conclusive. The girl Ku. Prabha (PW2) in the committal Court stated that a person from another village had ravished her. The respondent belongs to her own village and this throws doubt on the identity of the culprit (see para 13 of the committal Court's statement). Besides this, in paragraph 33 she admitted that she was scolded by the Sub-Inspector and that she had told him that she was implicating the respondent at the instance of her mother. These two facts throw doubt on the prosecution version that it was the respondent alone who was responsible for committing sexual intercourse with her. Even if, these two statements are ignored as mis-statement of fact that will not improve the position of the prosecution. If the view taken by the lower Court is reasonable and if another view of the matter could be taken that is no ground to interfere in the conclusions of the Court below, See Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1976 SC 2032 ). In the aforesaid circumstances. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal. AIR 1976 SC 2032 relied on. Appeal dismissed.