JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J 1. State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 11.1.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against him. 2. The trial Court has noticed the following prosecution story in paragraph No.2 of the judgment under challenge:- “Balbir Singh made a statement Ex.PC to the police on 15.4.2006 that he alongwith his daughter, aged 14 years, had gone to attend a function the previous night. His wife was on night duty in the hospital. At 2.00 p.m. the complainant asked his daughter to go home and told her that he would return later. His daughter left for home. Mange Ram, Lambardar who was sitting alongwith them also left the Pandal. The complainant went home after a short while and found that his daughter was not at home. The complainant went to the roof of his house and saw that accused had removed his payjama and had removed the Salwar of his daughter and had laid his daughter and had put his hand on her mouth and it was just then he reached. The complainant tried to catch hold of Mange Ram but he managed to escape. The FIR was registered at 5.50 p.m.” After registration of FIR, investigating officer went to the spot, sent the prosecutrix for medical examination which was conducted on her by Dr.Savita Yadav (PW10). At the time of medical examination, above said witness found an abrasion 2 x 1.5 cm on the middle of back of the prosecutrix. No other external injury was found. This witness further opined that possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. Om Parkash, ASI (PW11), the investigating officer arrested the accused and he was medically examined by Dr.A.K.Gupta (PW7). Above said witness stated that the accused was an old case of tuberculosis and diabetes. No marks of struggle were found on his person. No abrasion was seen locally and there was no erection of penis. This witness categorically stated that in his opinion, there was little chance of the accused being capable of performing sexual intercourse. 3. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. No abrasion was seen locally and there was no erection of penis. This witness categorically stated that in his opinion, there was little chance of the accused being capable of performing sexual intercourse. 3. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution produced as many as 11 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. 4. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating evidence existing on record was put to him. He denied the same, pleaded innocence and false implication. He further stated that Kamal, who was closely related to the prosecutrix, was a candidate for the post of Lambardar against him. He was defeated and on account of that, family of the prosecutrix was inimical to him. He was infirmed and sick person and was not capable of doing any bad act as alleged. He also led evidence in defence. 5. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties, found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and accordingly respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal. 6. State counsel has vehemently contended that the prosecution was successful in proving guilt of the respondent-accused on record. The trial Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in a proper manner. Prosecutrix and his father (the complainant) both have categorically stated that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken up the stairs on the roof top. Her mouth was shut. The respondent removed her salwar and after removing his own pajayama, was in the process of committing rape upon the prosecutrix, when complainant came there and saved her. She argued that if not commission of rape, offence of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix, by the respondent, was fully proved on record. She prayed that this application be allowed, leave be granted to State to file an appeal against the judgment under challenge. 7. After hearing arguments of the State counsel, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. As per facts on record, view taken by the trial Court was possible. The trial Court has taken note of delay in recording the FIR. 7. After hearing arguments of the State counsel, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. As per facts on record, view taken by the trial Court was possible. The trial Court has taken note of delay in recording the FIR. Court has further noticed that respondent was an old man and he was suffering from various ailments and in view of his ill health, it was not possible for him to drag the prosecutrix to the first floor of the house that too through a wooden staircase. It has also come on record that at the time of alleged occurrence, many persons were sleeping on the roof of the house. Even as per case of the prosecutrix and the complainant no rape was committed. The trial Court, when acquitting the respondent has observed thus:- “17. According to the complainant, he and his daughter had gone to attend a Jagran and at 1.45 a.m. he asked his daughter to go home, he also noticed the accused leaving. The house of the complainant was just 150 feet away from the place where the Jagran was going on. The complainant left the Pandal after few minutes and went home and did not find his daughter. He went to the roof of his house and saw the accused lying over his daughter. The accused had removed his payjama and he had also removed the Salwar of his daughter. He was categoric that no rape was committed. According to the father and the daughter, a crowd had gathered and thereafter people who had attended the Jagran had come to the house on hearing the rukus. The complainant stood by his complaint in the court and so did his daughter. It is to be seen whether their statements are truthful and convincing. The defence has doubted the prosecution story and picked holes in the prosecution case. The first argument was regarding delay in lodging the FIR. The incident took place at 1.45 a.m. The name of the accused was known. The mother of the prosecutrix returned at about 8.00 a.m. The incident was reported in the evening at 5.30 p.m. Not a word has been stated as to why it took so long to report. The statement of the complainant, prosecutrix and the Investigating Officer are silent in this regard. 18. The mother of the prosecutrix returned at about 8.00 a.m. The incident was reported in the evening at 5.30 p.m. Not a word has been stated as to why it took so long to report. The statement of the complainant, prosecutrix and the Investigating Officer are silent in this regard. 18. From the testimony of the prosecutrix and her father, it is evident that the relations between the complainant and the accused were not good. A relative of the complainant had stood against the accused in the Lambardari election and the accused had won and is Lambardar of the village. The prosecutrix has admitted that a case of theft was registered against a relative of the complainant at the instance of the accused and that accused is in custody. In this scenario, it appears strange that the accused would be sitting with the complainant at the Jagran. If the complainant did not see anything wrong in it but had noted that the accused had followed his daughter why did he not get up to leave his daughter home. More strange is the fact that there were several family members in the house of the accused. The incident took place in the summer season. The tenants of the accused were sleeping on the roof. The mother of the accused was sleeping in the verandah. The explanation offered by the girl is that the accused had put his hand over her mouth and she could not raise noise. She is a full grown girl and had been dragged to the roof of her house and the staircase of the house of accused was used but it did not alert any one in his house. The statement cannot be accepted. According to the prosecutrix, she did not raise any noise as she was gagged. 19. The complainant did not hear any sound coming from the roof, then why did he go to the roof. Stranger is the fact that there were people sleeping on the roof and the accused removed his clothes and of the girl and the girl was not able to attract attention. 20. It is also strange that a father would send his daughter alone in the dead of the night. There is no reason why he did not accompany her back. According to Raghbir PW8 his other children were also attending the function. 20. It is also strange that a father would send his daughter alone in the dead of the night. There is no reason why he did not accompany her back. According to Raghbir PW8 his other children were also attending the function. There is a contradiction in the statement of the complainant’s daughter. She had stated that all her brothers and sisters had gone to attend a wedding in village Bhankri but according to complainant, all of them were present in the Jagran. The statement of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted simply because one bruise was found on her back. There is no evidence that the accused could perform sexual intercourse. The medical report does not support the statement of the prosecutrix. There is a delay in lodging the report. The statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. Her statement is not convincing. Even the age of the prosecutrix has not been proved. The Medical Officer had advised dental and radiological test for determination of the age but the tests were not carried out. The story put forward by the prosecution is highly improbable.” 8. We feel that finding given above is perfectly justified and is as per evidence on record. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence. In such like situations, were two views are possible, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted. 9. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” 11. No case is made out to interfere at the instance of the applicant. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.