None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Heard Mr.R.K.Malakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar, in G.R. Case No. 713/02. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.11.2002 at about 4 PM the accused respondent attempted to molest the victim aged about 14 years by dragging her towards the jungle. FIR being lodged, the police registered a case and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet u/s 341/354 IPC. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 341/354 IPC and claimed to be tried. 4. During the trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused in his statement made u/s 313 Cr.P.C denied the allegation levelled against him but declined to adduce evidence. 5. PW 1 Sushil Barman is the father of the victim. He deposed that. The occurrence was took place at about 4 PM. Thereafter he orally lodged information to the police, which was reduced into writing Ext.1 and put his signature on it. Ext.1(1) is his signature. 6. PW 2, Rupali Barman is the victim girl. She deposed that while the accused pulled her towards jungle she raised hue and cry and hearing her alarm, the village youth came in her rescue. It was found that she did not state before the investigating officer that the accused forcibly took her and she raised hue and cry. 7. PW 3 is Nani Barman, a reported witness. PW 4 is Jatra Barman. He deposed that he found the victim was talking with the accused. Thereafter the accused pulled her to jungle. He followed them and seeing him, the accused ran away towards police station. He also admitted that the victim did not raise any hue and cry. 8. PW 5 is Dhanjit Barman. He deposed that while the accused was pulling, the victim girl raised hue and cry. However, he did not state in his earlier statement made u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that the victim girl is raised any hue and cry. 9. PW 6 is Brindaban alias Birendra Barman. He deposed that he saw the accused and victim proceeding towards jungle. He alongwith others chased them and the accused ran away towards police station. According to him he lodged the FIR. 9. PW 6 is Brindaban alias Birendra Barman. He deposed that he saw the accused and victim proceeding towards jungle. He alongwith others chased them and the accused ran away towards police station. According to him he lodged the FIR. PW 6 also claimed himself as the informant of the case. 10. PW 1 and PW 6 have claimed that they lodged FIR. The investigating officer who was examined as PW 7 stated that PW 1 Sushil Barman never stated before him the name of the accused. He further deposed that victim never stated before him that she raised hue and cry. 11. Learned trial Court has observed that there were three ejahar for the same occurrence. One ejahar was filed by PW 6, another was Ext.1 and lastly the ejahar which was reduced into writing by the Officer-in-charge. One of the FIR which was accepted as Ext.1, the name of the accused was not disclosed and another ejahar is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C and subsequent ejahar cannot be treated as FIR. 12. The learned trial Court also observed that the accused was not properly identified. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that the witnesses saw the victim girl alongwith the accused and she did not raise any hue and cry while proceeding alongwith the accused. The learned trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused was acquitted. 13. In view of the evidence and materials on record, I find that there is nothing to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court and the appeal is dismissed. 14. Return the case record alongwith a copy of the judgment. _____________