Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal against acquittal arises out of the following facts : At about 10.00 A.M. on August 11, 1991, Mohini Devi (PW-6) wife of Mohan Singh (PW-7) went to the Raghunath Temple in Hamida Colony, Yamunanagar where she met the accused, who was working as a Pujari. She showed her palm to the accused and asked him to opine as to why her husband, who was driver of a three-wheeler, was running into a loss. The accused, however, told her to sit outside the temple door and thereafter caught hold of her by hand and dragged her inside the room and raped her and despite an alarm raised by her no body came forward to help her. She was then turned out of the room. She then returned to her house situated near the Balmiki Temple in Hamida Colony but did not give the information to her husband till August 13, 1991, on which she along with her husband went to the Police Post situated in the colony and made her statement (Exh. PG) to ASI Ram Kumar (PW-8) and on its basis, the F.I.R. was registered at Police Station City, Yamunanagar at 10.35 P.M. on August 13, 1991. ASI Ram Kumar thereafter took up the investigation and sent Mohini Devi to the hospital for her medical examination, which was duly conducted by Dr. C.K. Shukla (PW-4). The accused was arrested on August 14, 1991 and was also medico-legally examined by Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta (PW-1), who vide his report (Exh. PA) found the accused capable of performing sexual intercourse. on the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty was brought to trial. 2. In support of its case, the prosecution examined inter alia, PW-1 Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta; PW-4 Dr. C.K. Shukla; PW - 6 Mohini Devi, the prosecutrix; and PW - 7 Mohan Singh, the husband of the prosecutrix. Certain affidavits constituting the links evidence were also tendered in evidence. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. He also moved an application for his medical examination to ascertain as to whether he was in fact impotent. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. He also moved an application for his medical examination to ascertain as to whether he was in fact impotent. This application was allowed and a direction was issued that he be examined in Civil Hospital, Yamunanagar but it appears that the examination was not carried out on account of some procedural difficulty. 4. The trial Court held that the fact that as there was no injury either on the person of the prosecutrix or the accused, should that there was some doubt with regard to the correctness of the prosecution case. It further found that it was the case of the prosecutrix herself that there were many houses and shops near the temple and that she had raised an alarm but no body from the neighbourhood had come to the scene, which belied her story and proved the fact that she was apparently a consenting party. It was also held that the above findings were further supported by the fact that the F.I.R. had been lodged after 2-1/2 days of the incident. It was also found that Mohini Devis version was at variance with that of her husband as he had stated that he had gone to Delhi to get his three-wheeler repaired and had returned on August 13, 1991 whereas the prosecutrix had stated that he had returned for lunch even on the day of incident. The trial Court accordingly acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana impugning the judgment of acquittal. 6. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana and Mr, R.S. Dhanda, the learned counsel appearing of the accused- respondent. 7. It is true that in a case of rape, the delay in the lodging of the FIR is often over-looked but in the case in hand, we find that this may not be possible in the circumstances set out above. It is the case of the prosecutrix that her husband had gone to Delhi but had returned in time for lunch on August 11, 1991, whereas Mohan Singh, however, stated that he had returned on August 13, 1991. It is the case of the prosecutrix that her husband had gone to Delhi but had returned in time for lunch on August 11, 1991, whereas Mohan Singh, however, stated that he had returned on August 13, 1991. To our mind, the evidence is clearly discrepant on a very material aspect and casts a doubt on the story. 8. Likewise, we find that there was only one small injury on the person of the prosecutrix and no injury whatsoever on the person of the accused though it had been noted by the trial Judge that he was 40 years of age and was of a weak physique whereas the prosecutrix was 25 years of age and of robust health. We also find that the accused had made a specific application that he be got medically examined to determine his potency but for some reason that examination was not carried out. The accused was thus clearly prejudiced in his defence. In Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) SCC 166, it has been held by the Honble the Supreme Court that where two views are possible. the one taken by the trial Court in making a judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the judgment is perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence. We find that the view taken by the trial Court could well have been taken on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.