JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal has been filed u/s. 378(iii) & (i) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1987 passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Sanchore in Criminal Case No. 134/1985 - State v. Karamsi. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that a challan was submitted against the accused-respondent for the offences u/ss. 354 & 452 of the IPC in the Court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Sanchore whereupon charge u/ss. 452 & 354 was framed against the accused. During the course of trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and tendered 6 documents in evidence. 3. After close of the evidence of prosecution, the accused in his statement recorded u/s. 313, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. No evidence in defence was adduced. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. Hence, the State has preferred the present appeal. 5. In this case, according to the prosecution story, PW-1 Rukma while she was sleeping in the noon of 20.5.1985 in her house (Padwa), which was in the field, accused came there, caught hold of her Sari and started pressing her body. On hearing her cry, her son Sardara (PW-5) came there. The other persons PW-4 Vohta and PW-2 Jagga, who were passing through the nearby fields also came there. On seeing them, accused ran away from there. The report of the incident Ex.P/2 was lodged in the police station Chitalwana. 6. The learned trial Court found material contradictions in the prosecution story and came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court also found that the accused is of the age prosecutrix's son and did not believe that at such a place accused will commit such an offence particularly when the son of the prosecutrix was also a little away from there. 7. The incident is of 1987. After about 20 years this matter has come up before me for examining the validity of the order of acquittal. 8. I have examined the evidence led in this case. 7. The incident is of 1987. After about 20 years this matter has come up before me for examining the validity of the order of acquittal. 8. I have examined the evidence led in this case. The position of law is well settled that in the orders of acquittal passed by the Courts below this Court normally is not required to interfere unless there are specific reasons for that. The law is also well settled on the point that even if a different view possibly can be taken in the matter then also unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse in nature, this Court should not normally interfere in the findings of acquittal arrived at by the Court below. I do not find any such misreading of evidence by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence very well with reasons and recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of accused-respondent. 9. In view of above, after lapse of 20 years of the incident, I do not find it reasonable to interfere in the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 10. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in this State appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the state appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******