JUDGMENT 1. - In assailing the judgment dated December 5, 1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur under which the appeal of the accused petitioner preferred before him against the order of the learned Magistrate dated July 30, 1983, was dismissed, the learned counsel contends that the delay of 24 hours in filing the complaint is fatal, the prosecution and the case rests on the interested witnesses, there was enmity between the parties as a result of which the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the injuries found on medical examination are not connected with the date of incident. The learned Magistrate had convicted the accused petitioner under Section 354 and 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. The facts of the case are contained in the order of the learned trial court and that of the learned Sessions Judge and need not be repeated and suffice it to say that one Smt. Dhodi went to jungle to collect dried cow dung, the accused petitioner caught hold of her, threw her on the ground and made an attempt to commit sexual intercourse. Kailashi and Gokul are said to have come on the spot seeing them ran away. 3. It appears that there is delay of about 24 hours in lodging the report which has not been explained. In fact no report was lodged, but a complaint was filed. There is no dispute and even in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge it has been mentioned that the two witnesses Kailashi and Gokul are near relations. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1981, and as per the statement of Mst. Dhodi, when the accused-petitioner was trying to outrage her modesty, she raised an alarm and the said witnesses were attracted and seeing them the accused ran away. It does not appeal to one's common sense that in the circumstances in which Mst. Dhodi was placed, she could have raised an alarm and the accused-petitioner could have caused injuries to her. That apart, the occurrence is said to have taken place in 1981. Dr. Hari Narain PW. 8 has stated that at the tame of examination of the prosecutrix, the age of the injuries (sic) was within 24 hours were not caused while making attempt to commit sexual intercourse. That apart, the occurrence is said to have taken place in 1981. Dr. Hari Narain PW. 8 has stated that at the tame of examination of the prosecutrix, the age of the injuries (sic) was within 24 hours were not caused while making attempt to commit sexual intercourse. If this is looked into along with the fact the it there was enmity, between the parties, the case of the prosecution is rendered doubtful. 4. Consequently, I allow this revision petition and quash and set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as well as that of the learned Magistrate convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner under Section 354 and 323 IPC. The accused-petitioner is acquitted. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby discharged. Fine, if paid shall be refunded to the accused petitioner.Revision allowed. *******