JUDGMENT : P. K. Tripathy, J. - This Government Appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in S.T. Case No. 244 of 1995. 2. Opposite Party-respondent faces trial for the charges under Sections 379/ 376/ 354/ 323/ 341/ 506/ 34 Indian Penal Code. Allegations made against the accused-respondent is that he along with co-accused persons obstructed the informant (P.W. 2) and robbed him of his salary amounting to Rs. 1700/- and in that process not only they assaulted him but also molested and ravished his accompanying wife Salma Hembram (P.W. 3). Though the occurrence took place on 11.6.1993 at about 3 P.M., but the F.I.R was lodged at 12.30 P.M., on 12.6.1993. After a routine investigation police submitted the charge-sheet. Since the other accused persons were absconding the Respondent was committed to the Court of Sessions and he faced the trial on the charge for the aforesaid offences. 3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined six witnesses, besides relying on five documents and wearing apparels of the P.W. No. 3 vide M. Os I to III. Amongst the witnesses, as noted above, P.W. 3 is the victim woman whereas P.W. No. 2 is her husband and the informant and also a victim of the occurrence. P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the two Doctors and P.W. 1 is the Scientific Officer, who proved the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and P.W. 4 is the Investigating Officer. 4. The trial court loosing track of the factual and legal requirements which were to be considered went astray in the initial part of his judgment by making loose comments on the system in the Society involving Ministers, Doctors and higher-ups in the Private Sector but fortunately on the later part of the impugned judgment on due reference to the evidence on record, he passed an order of acquittal because of inconsistency in the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 relating to the occurrence of assault, looting and rape, absence of corroborative evidence due to non-examination of C.R.P.F. Jawan, who according to the P. Ws. 2 and 3 were the rescuer, non-proving of the injury certificate, delay in lodging the F.I.R and non-explaining the same. 2 and 3 relating to the occurrence of assault, looting and rape, absence of corroborative evidence due to non-examination of C.R.P.F. Jawan, who according to the P. Ws. 2 and 3 were the rescuer, non-proving of the injury certificate, delay in lodging the F.I.R and non-explaining the same. After going through the evidence on record and hearing learned Standing Counsel, this Court finds no illegality in that order of acquittal so as to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Government Appeal stands dismissed. 5. Mr. G.S. Pani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent having been appointed by the High Court Legal Aid Committee invites attention of this Court to the plain paper application which the Respondent has sent from the Jail and also to order No. 15 dated 23.7.1998. It appears that the Respondent perhaps has been arrested and detained in Jail custody pursuant to the notice issued u/s 390, Code of Criminal Procedure If that be so, in view of the confirmation of the order of acquittal, Respondent be set at liberty forthwith. Final Result : Dismissed