JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 8.5.1991 acquitting the accused respondent for offence under section 377 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 18.8.1986 Mamraj has submitted a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that his nephew Bheemraj was staying with him for last three years. It is alleged that on last Thursday when Bheemraj was in the field of Darshan Singh, Ram Chand and Syonarain lifted him and took to another field. It is also alleged that Syonarain committed unnatural offence with him. On this information, police registered a case for offence under section 377 IPC and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the respondent for offence under section 377 IPC. 3. The accused respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 9 witnesses. The accused respondent in statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. The trial Court found that FIR was lodged after five days and further that statement of Bheemraj do not find corroboration with the medical evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondent for offence under section 377 IPC. 4. I have heard Mr. A.R. Nikub, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent. I have carefully perused the record. It is not in dispute that FIR has been lodged after five days. During this period a panchayat was also convened and there was a bargain between complainant party and the accused person. As the bargain failed, the complaint was lodged. The medical evidence also do not support the case of prosecution. In these circumstances, the trial Court found that on the sole testimony of Bheemraj the conviction for offence under section 377 IPC cannot sustain. It is settled position of law that if two views are possible it is not for the Court to interfere with the acquittal. 5. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid, the State appeal is rejected.Appeal rejected. *******