D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30-11-1996 passed by the Court of sessions, Vizianagaramins. C. No. 47 of 1996. ( 2 ) THE sole accused was charged of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The court below, on evidence, found the accused not guilty of the charge with which he was leveled and accordingly acquitted him by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 1-9-1995 at about 9. 00 a. m. , when the victim P. W. 1 was going to the fields by taking meals to her husband P. W. 2 and when she was passing through the jute crop of one Yandrapujoginaidu, the accused came behind her and forcibly lifted her and dragged her to the said jute crop fields with an intention to outrage her modesty and tore her jacket and pushed her on the ground and tried to commit rape against her. At that time, on hearing the cries raised by P. W. 1, one Mudala Mahalaxmi and Yandrapur ramu (P. W. 3), who were coming behind the victim at a distance, approached the victim and on seeing them, the accused left the victim and ran away and the victim informed the entire incident to the said persons and she went to her husband and informed the same. Thereafter, the husband of P. W. 1 informed the incident to the village elders and got convened a Panchayat and when the accused did not turn up to the said Panchayat, he made a complaint to the police, who registered it as a case in crime No. 68/1995 for the offence punishable under Sec. 354 ipc. Thereafter after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. ( 4 ) THE case of the accused is of total denial. ( 5 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 and M. O. 1 was also marked. On behalf of the defence, D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 were marked as exs. D-1 to D-3. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 and M. O. 1 was also marked. On behalf of the defence, D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 were marked as exs. D-1 to D-3. ( 6 ) THE specific case of the prosecution as spoken to by P. W. 1 is that while she was going through the jute fields of one Yandrapu joginaidu, the accused forcibly lifted her and dragged her to the said jute fields and attempted to commit the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. But the char ge in the instant case is, framed under Section 354 IPC for assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. In my considered view, the charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC should have been framed. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the victim, P. W. 2 is the husband of P. W. 1, P. W. 3 is said to be an independent witness, P. W. 4 is the person who tried to conduct conciliation and P. W. 5 is the seizure panch. ( 8 ) THE crucial evidence in this case is that of P. W. 1. She stated that she along with one mahalakshmi were going to the fields for taking lunch to her husband P. W. 2, and when Mahalakshmi stopped for attending natural calls, she (P. W. 1) proceeded further and at that time, the accused caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty. It is important to note that she never spoke about the presence of P. W. 3. But P. W. 3 in contrast to the evidence of P. W. 1, stated that when he along with said Mahalakshmi were going, they heard the cries of P. W. 1 and went to rescue her. From this it is clear that there is any amount of discrepancy with regard to the presence of P. W. 3, who is said to be the independent witness. If P. Ws. From this it is clear that there is any amount of discrepancy with regard to the presence of P. W. 3, who is said to be the independent witness. If P. Ws. l s evidence is to be believed, P. W. 3 s presence was not at all there and if P. W. 3 s evidence is to be believed, he did not see P. W. 1 at all and he i only went to the scene of offence on hearing the cries of P. W. 1. ( 9 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a minor discrepancy and the same maybe ignored. I cannot accept this submission, for the reason that when the totaility of the circumstances are taken into cbnsideration, such of those discrepancies, which do not disturb the main fabric of the case of the prosecution, alone can be treated as minor discrepancies, but not the discrepancies, which totally negates the case of the prosecution. ( 10 ) FROM the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3, the presence of P. W. 3 is doubtful and in such circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P. W. 3 and equally so with the testimony of P. W. 1. Normally the solitary testimony of the witness can be taken into consideration, provided the same is,without contradictions and inspires confidence. Further there are no other witnesses to speak about the incident. In the instant case, the testimony of the victim has been trucked with the evidence of so called eye-witness P. W. 3 and further it is also on record that P. W. 3 is a close relative of P. W. 1. In such circumstances, i can only hold that the evidence of P. W. 3 is only a make believe one. ( 11 ) THE other factor that is to be noted is that the incident took place on 1-9-1995 and the report was given on the next day. The reason offered by the prosecution is that some attempts were made to reconcile the issue through P. W. 4 and when the concilations did not fructify the complaint was lodged. This shows that the complaint was lodged only after due deliberations and the possibility of implicating the innocent persons due to failure of such deliberations cannot also be ruled out. This shows that the complaint was lodged only after due deliberations and the possibility of implicating the innocent persons due to failure of such deliberations cannot also be ruled out. In normal course, one day s delay cannot be treated as vital, but in the present circumstances, there is every possibility to introduce some body like P. W. 3, to strengthen the case of the prosecution. ( 12 ) NEXTLY the so-called Mahalakshmi who accordingly to prosecution and also according to P. W. I, accompanied P. W. 1 to the fields, was not examined at all, this is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further according to the case of the prosecution, when accused pushed her into the jute fields, she gave resistance and pushed the accused and in that process, the accused caught hold of her jacked and it was torn. Further as per the evidence of P. W. 3, P. W. 1 was struggling with the accused, and trying to escape from the clutches of the accused. If this version is to be believed then P. W. 1 definitely should have received some injuries. But, nowhere it is stated that P. W. 1 received any injuries. ( 13 ) WHEN the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses is scrutinized, there are many discrepancies and, therefore, the court below considering the entire material on record, both oral and documentary, had rightly acquitted the accused and I also do not find any valid ground to interfere with the same. ( 14 ) FOR the above reasons, I pass the order as under: the Appeal dismissed.