JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 16.12.88 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Bhinmal, in Criminal Original Case No. 75/87 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent Jawar Singh of the offence under Section 354 and 457 I.P.C. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) on 25.1.87 at about 10 a.m. P. W 1 Chela Ram gave an oral report to P.W.4 Jeevan Ram, SHO Police Station, Bhinmal, Dist.Jalore stating that on 23.1.87 in the night, he was giving water to the crops in the field of P.W.3 Varad Singh and in his Dhani at about Mid Night he herd cries of a lady and hearing cry, he reached there and P.W.3 Varad Singh also followed him. At that time, he was told by his wife P.W.5 Badri (prosecutrix) that he accused respondent Jawar Singh entered forcibly in her-house and climbed over her cot and on being asked, he told his name to be Jawar Singh and he tried to outrage her modesty. On hearing her cry, P.W.6 Navanga, her mother-in-law came there, at that time he ran away from the scene. Thereafter P.W. 1 Chela Ram and P.W.3 Varad Singh went to the house of the accused respondent Jawar Singh and he was told about his misdeeds, but he did not pay any heed and thereafter this report was lodged by P.W.1 Chela Ram on 25.1.87. This report was entered first in the Rojnamcha and the same is marked as Ex.P/3 and thereafter regular FIR Ex. P/1 was chalked out by P.W.4 Jeevan Ram and the investigation was started. (ii) During investigation through Ex.P/7 the accused respondent Jawar Singh was arrested on 29.1.87. (iii) After usual investigation challan was submitted in the lower Court against the accused respondent Jawar Singh for offences under Sections 457 and 354 I.P.C. 3. The Charges under Sections 457 and 354 I.P.C. was framed against the accused respondent Jawar Singh by learned Magistrate on 9.3.87 who denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During, trial, six witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were produced in defence. 5. The Charges under Sections 457 and 354 I.P.C. was framed against the accused respondent Jawar Singh by learned Magistrate on 9.3.87 who denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During, trial, six witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were produced in defence. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 16.12.88 acquitted the accused respondent Jawar Singh of the offences under Sections 457 and 354 I.P.C. 'inter alia' holding : (i) that there, are so many material contradictions amongst statements of P.W.1 Chela Ram, P.W.3 Varad Singh and P.W.5 Badri and there is no similarity in their statements about the alleged incident. (ii) that the contents which were mentioned in the Rojnamcha Rapat Ex.P13 are not corroborated by the statements of P.W. 1 Chela Ram, P.W. 3 Varad Singh and P.W. 5 Badri. (iii) that the incident took place on 23.1.87 and the report was lodged on 25.1`.87 and thus, there is delay. (iv) that there are so many contradictions in the statement of P.W.5 Badri herself. Thus holding that since serious infirmities in evidence are there, therefore, the learned Magistrate did not believe on the solitary statement of P.W.5 Badri and he gave benefit of doubt to the accused respondent Jawar Singh and acquitted him as stated above. 6. Aggrieved from the judgment, dated 16.12.88 the present state appeal has been filed. 7. In this appeal it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of learned Magistrate is based on surmises and conjectures and thus is highly erroneous one and bad in law and should be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same does not call for interference by this Court. 9. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same does not call for interference by this Court. 9. There is no dispute on the point that the alleged incident took place in the midnight of 23.1.87 and report was lodged by P.W. 1 Chela Ram on 25.1.87 and there is evidence that P.W. 1 Chela Ram was informed about the incident just after the alleged occurrence and therefore, this delay has not been explained by P.W.1 Chela Ram and thus, in absence of reasonable explanation for delay in making the report, I am of the view that unexplained delay throws serious doubt on the prosecution case. On this aspect, the learned Magistrate has rightly observed so. 10. It may be stated here that charge for offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is one which is very easy to make and very difficult to rebut and when such a charge is made, it is necessary to see, whether it is supported by independent evidence besides that of woman herself or is corroborated by her conduct and surrounding circumstances and is consistent with ordinary probabilities. Where solitary evidence of prosecutrix did not appear to be reliable, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Where new allegations have been levelled and overt acts were attributed to the accused at the trial which were not mentioned in the FIR, under such circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. Keeping the above principle in mind, the statement of P.W.5 Badri has to be seen. 12. It may be stated here that there is no medical evidence also. 13. P.W.5 Badri has stated that the whole incident was narrated by her to her husband on the same night and in her examination-in-chief, learned P. P. wanted to confront her with her police Station Ex.P/6 and permission was given by the Court to the P.P. In her statement, she has made so many improvements. She has further stated that her "Ghaghra" and "Kanchli" were torn out and torn clothes were not given to the police and she received injuries on hands and breast. She was not medically examined. She has further stated that her "Ghaghra" and "Kanchli" were torn out and torn clothes were not given to the police and she received injuries on hands and breast. She was not medically examined. All these facts go to show that there is improvement in her statement and they are not corroborated by medical evidence. She has further stated that the person who climbed over her cot told his name as Jawar Singh, but she did not see her face and her mother-in-law P.W.6 Navanga also came there. P.W.6 Navanga stated that on that night, she did not talk to her daughter-in-law P.W.5 Badri and P.W.5 Badri did not tell anything to her and P.W.6 Navanga who is very material witness in this case has been declared hostile. P.W.6 Navanga stated that blouse of her daughter-in-law P.W.5 Badri was torn out, but her "Ghaghra" was not torn out. Thus, there is no uniformity in the statement of prosecution witnesses and the learned Magistrate has rightly observed so. 14. Thus, in the present case, apart from delay, statement of P.W.5 Badri is not corroborated by her mother- in-law Navanga and there are material improvements and contradictions amongst the statements of prosecution witnesses and thus, P.W.5 Badri does not appear to be a reliable witness and in these circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused respondent Jawar Singh after giving him benefit of doubt appear to be correct one and are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the present state appeal is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the present state appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 16.12.88 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhinmal in Criminal Original Case no.75/1987.Appeal dismissed. *******