JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-The acquittal of respondents, passed by the learned trial Court in criminal Case No. 118-1 of 1999, decided on 1.5.2000, under Sections 354 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code has been assailed in this appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. Prosecutrix was a student of BA 1st year, studying in the College at Nerwa. She used to go to her College from her village on foot. It was an hour walk. On 30th August, 1999 around 7 a.m., while going to the College, she reached near Khokha Primary School, she found the respondents standing on the way in furtherance of their common intention they alleged to have caught hold of her with the arms with an intention to out-rage her modesty. In that scuffle, her shirt also was torn of. She raised hue and cry but no one came for her rescue. Respondents fled away from the spot. She lodged the report next day in Police Station, Chopal. Police registered a case under the aforesaid Sections, visited the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix handed over her torn shirt to the Police, which was taken \into possession. 3. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondents. Respondents were put to charge. They abjured the guilt and claim trial. 4. On the conclusion of the trial, respondents were acquitted on the ground that there were material contradictions in the report lodged by the prosecutrix, her statement recorded in the court and there was no other evidence to lend corroboration to her statement except statement of PW2 Ramesh Chand and PW3 Kirpal Singh who were not natural witnesses and materially contradicted the version of the prosecutrix and also admitted that their statements before the police were incorrect. 5. In her report to the Police, prosecutrix did not name any of the alleged eye witnesses. PW3 Kirpal Singh is a resident of village Chhabni which is far from the place of incident. According to him he was going to village Khokha on the day of incident. When he reached near the School, he had seen the respondents standing in the field near the School. PW3 Kirpal Singh is a resident of village Chhabni which is far from the place of incident. According to him he was going to village Khokha on the day of incident. When he reached near the School, he had seen the respondents standing in the field near the School. But the perusal of the site plan shows that there was no field near the School and in cross-examination he stated that he was called by his brother Ramesh (PW2) when the police reached the spot. He categorically stated that police did not record his statement correctly and further stated that orchard to which he was going belongs to his uncle. 6. PW2 is the real brother of the prosecutrix. He admits that he and PW3 are the close relatives of the prosecutrix. From the record, it transpired that they were procured witnesses. 7. In so far as the statement of the prosecutrix is concerned, in FIR she stated that respondents had caught hold her from her arm but as PW1 stated that they had tried to press her breast and that because of this, the left side of her shirt got torn. Although the shirt Ext P1 was produced in the court but there is no observation that it was torn and also that on the day of the alleged incident, she was wearing it. She also stated that there is inhabited place near the place of the incident and although she cried but no body came for her rescue and no attempt was made by the Police to record the statement of any of the inhabitants of the said houses to lend strength to her version. She categorically admitted in detail in her cross examination that whatever she has stated before the court was correct and whatever is mentioned in the FIR, was incorrect. 8. On analyzing the evidence, statement of the prosecutrix is not confidence inspiring. She did not say after the alleged incident, she had gone to College or returned to her house and made complaint to any one. Even police post happened to be nearby but she did not report the matter to police. Against the aforesaid back-ground, the learned Assistant Advocate General argued that the prosecutrix was unmarried women. It is difficult to digest that a woman would prefer to put her character at stake by implicating the respondents falsely. I have considered this argument. Even police post happened to be nearby but she did not report the matter to police. Against the aforesaid back-ground, the learned Assistant Advocate General argued that the prosecutrix was unmarried women. It is difficult to digest that a woman would prefer to put her character at stake by implicating the respondents falsely. I have considered this argument. 9. True it is that a woman will not prefer to put her character at stake even to take revenge to implicate the accused-respondents falsely may not be wrong but it cannot be applied universally. Each case has to be determined on the test ground of the factual matrix thereof. 10. There are catena of law reports which are replete with the decision where even charges under Sections 376 and 354 Indian Penal Code have been found to be falsely advanced. The exact place of occurrence and the manner in which the purported offence was allegedly committed, materially differ, which make the case of prosecution a suspect. Since the reasons for acquittal recorded by the learned trial court are born out from the record, no interference is called by this Court. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.