JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 17.11.1995 accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 14.3.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1998, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anil Kumar and others, all the accused stand acquitted of the charged offences. 2. It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix (PW-2) was residing in the house of her mother Smt. Renuka Devi at Sarkaghat. Prosecutrix has got two brothers, namely Sh. Satish Kumar who is married to Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3) and Sh. Tek Chand (PW-5). Both the brothers are having a shop in the bazaar at Sarkaghat. On 17.11.1995 Sh. Satish Kumar was travelling to Delhi in connection with his work. Same day at about 5.00 p.m., accused came in a jeep and parked it outside the house of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, they entered the kitchen and forcibly lifted the prosecutrix to take her away in the vehicle. Prosecutrix raised hue and cry and in the milieu certain utensils in the kitchen fell. Hearing commotion and cries Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3) and Smt. Renuka Devi came out of the room towards the kitchen. They witnessed the occurrence of the incident. They rescued the prosecutrix from the clutches of the accused. In this process both the prosecutrix and Smt. Saroj Kumari sustained injuries. Also Smt. Renuka Devi caught hold of pullover worn by accused Anil Kumar and in an attempt to release himself he took off the same and left it behind. Incident was also witnessed by neighbour Smt. Suman Kumari (PW- 4) who also helped in rescuing the prosecutrix. She also took the prosecutrix inside her house. However, before the accused could be caught they ran away from the spot. Sh. Tek Chand (PW-5) brother of the prosecutrix was informed of the incident who shortly arrived at the spot and got in touch with his brother Sh. Satish Kumar on telephone, who advised him to lodge a report with the police. Accordingly F.I.R. No. 253/95, dated 17.11.1995 (Ext. PC) was registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat under Sections 451, 354, 366, 511/34 IPC. Police got the prosecutrix and Smt. Saroj Kumari medically examined from Dr. Vishwa Chander (PW-1) who issued MLCs (Ext. PA and Ext. PB). Satish Kumar on telephone, who advised him to lodge a report with the police. Accordingly F.I.R. No. 253/95, dated 17.11.1995 (Ext. PC) was registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat under Sections 451, 354, 366, 511/34 IPC. Police got the prosecutrix and Smt. Saroj Kumari medically examined from Dr. Vishwa Chander (PW-1) who issued MLCs (Ext. PA and Ext. PB). Pullover was taken into possession by the police who also carried out investigation at the spot. With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 366, 511 all read with section 34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded. 5. Appreciating the material on record, Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal. 6. We have heard Sh. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General duly assisted by Sh. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the appellant-State as also Sh. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same. 7. The fact that Dr. Vishwa Chander (PW-1) medically examined the prosecutrix and Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3) who sustained injuries cannot be disputed. MLC of Smt. Saroj Kumari (Ext. PA) and the prosecutrix (Ext. PB) are on record. 8. Prosecution case primarily rests upon testimonies of four witnesses, i.e., the prosecutrix (PW-2), Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3), Smt. Suman Kumari (PW-4) and Sh. Tek Chand (PW-5). 9. Significantly the only independent witness Smt. Suman Kumari (PW-4) in her uncontroverted testimony states that "I do not remember whether the accused persons present in the court are the same boys who were found lifting Yashodha". Hence she has not identified the accused persons. Tek Chand (PW-5). 9. Significantly the only independent witness Smt. Suman Kumari (PW-4) in her uncontroverted testimony states that "I do not remember whether the accused persons present in the court are the same boys who were found lifting Yashodha". Hence she has not identified the accused persons. She has neither named nor identified the accused to be involved in the alleged offence. Why is it that this witness was not cross examined by the Public Prosecutor on this aspect is not clear. She only states that she had seen three boys coming towards the house of the prosecutrix. Hearing some cries she went to the spot and noticed these boys bodily lifting the prosecutrix who was being rescued by her mother and bhabhi (sister-in-law). Her statement does not implicate the accused as they do not stand identified. Significantly this witness also does not state anything with regard to the presence of the vehicle on the spot. 10. Mother of the prosecutrix has not been examined in Court. Why so? has not been explained. It is also seen that Sh. Tek Chand (PW-5) firstly consulted his brother Sh. Satish Kumar (not examined) and then took the prosecutrix to the police station for registering the F.I.R. The incident allegedly took place in the year 1995 when mobile phones were not in use in this State. Sh. Satish Kumar was travelling to Delhi in a bus. Sh. Tek Chand (PW-5) does not state from where and to which place he called his brother. This fact acquires significance in view of date i.e. 15.11.1995 mentioned in the F.I.R. (Ext. PC). It is the defence of the accused that Anil Kumar was having intimate relationship with the prosecutrix. Since the relationship could not fructify into marriage, therefore, parties desired that Anil Kumar return certain letters exchanged between them. Marriage of the prosecutrix was to be solemnized somewhere else and betrothal ceremony was to be held sometime in November, 1995. When accused Anil Kumar went to deliver the letters he was beaten up by the complainant party. Such incident took place on 15.11.1995 though F.I.R. was got recorded on 17.11.1995 after due deliberations and with the sole object and purpose of falsely implicating the accused. In this regard we notice that in the F.I.R. (Ext. PC) daily diary No. 24 is dated 15.11.1995. Such incident took place on 15.11.1995 though F.I.R. was got recorded on 17.11.1995 after due deliberations and with the sole object and purpose of falsely implicating the accused. In this regard we notice that in the F.I.R. (Ext. PC) daily diary No. 24 is dated 15.11.1995. So why is it that it took two days for the police to actually register the F.I.R.? What transpired during this period has not been explained by the police/prosecution. Though Investigating Officer, Gulzar Mohammad (PW-7) has tried to explain that date was mentioned wrongly by the munshi but then this fact stands materially contradicted by his own testimony wherein in no unambiguous terms he states that F.I.R. was correctly recorded by him "without any omissions in recording material facts". Also Munshi has not been examined. Noticeably accused have put their defence to all the material prosecution witnesses. Though it stands denied by them, but then this fact itself does not cure the defect which has rendered the prosecution story to be doubtful. It totally knocks down the foundation of the prosecution case and renders the story to be doubtful. 11. With regard to the story that the accused came in a jeep we find that except for the sole testimony of Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3) there is nothing else on record. Neither the prosecutrix (PW- 2) nor Smt. Suman Kumari (PW-4) mentions anything about this fact. Noticeably Investigating Officer, Gulzar Mohammad (PW-7) does not mention about presence of the same. Also his investigation did not reveal this fact. 12. Testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 in our considered view cannot be said to be totally reliable so as to conclusively implicate the accused to the alleged crime. It does not inspire confidence. Significantly their version does not stand corroborated by other independent witnesses, who even according to them had gathered at the spot. PW-3 does not specifically deny the fact that there was intimate relationship between accused Anil Kumar and the prosecutrix. She does not remember the tone or the nature of the cries raised by the prosecutrix at the time of occurrence of the incident. On the other hand, prosecutrix admits that accused Anil Kumar was her school mate and used to persuade her to get married to her. She admits that a person sitting in the living room of the house can notice anyone who enters the kitchen. On the other hand, prosecutrix admits that accused Anil Kumar was her school mate and used to persuade her to get married to her. She admits that a person sitting in the living room of the house can notice anyone who enters the kitchen. According to this witness her mother and bhabhi were sitting in the living room. Now if accused, during broad day light, had entered the kitchen of the house through the courtyard/compound of the house then obviously their presence would have been noticed by the people in the house. It appears that either the incident did not take place in the manner in which it stands narrated by these witnesses or accused actually went into the kitchen with the tacit consent of the prosecutrix. 13. Coming to the medical evidence we find that Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3) has referred to the injuries, which she sustained on her right foot which fact stands materially contradicted by medical record and statement of the Doctor who found the injury to be on the left foot and not the right foot. We also notice that Doctor examined the injured on 17.11.1995 at about 11.45 a.m. Now if incident actually took place at about 5.00 p.m. on 17.11.1995, then how is it that injured were examined in the morning hours. All this lends credence to the defence of the accused and makes their version to be highly probable. This fact renders the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Gulzar Mohammad (PW-7) to be false to the extent he has deposed that injured were got medically examined only after registration of the F.I.R. 14. It cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention committed house trespass by entering into the building of the prosecutrix, which is used as a human dwelling after making preparation to commit an offence of hurt and kidnapping or caused hurt to the prosecutrix and compelled her to marry accused Anil Kumar. 15. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record we find that no case for interference is made out. It cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. 16. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. It cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. 16. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. Present appeal is thus dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.