JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 03.10.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Case No.98/2 of 2004, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Bhagat Ram, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. IT is the case of prosecution that on 16.05.2004 at about 6.00 AM, accused Bhagat Ram entered the cowshed of complainant-prosecutrix (PW.1) and outraged her modesty. When she tried to resist, accused hit her head with the wall as a result of which she sustained injuries. The incident was witnessed by her son Tek Chand (PW.5), and passerby Mahesh Dutt (PW.3) and Naresh (not examined). Same day at 8.00 PM Kanshi Ram (PW.2) her husband returned home to whom she narrated the incident. When Kanshi Ram (PW.2) confronted the accused, he was also given beatings. Also accused threatened the entire family of dire consequences. Thereafter, both the prosecutrix and her husband went to Police Station, Arki and lodged FIR No.0064 dated 16.05.2004 (Ex.PW.1/A) under Sections 354, 451, 323 and 506 IPC. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Doctor Sant Lal (PW.8), who issued MLC (Ex.PW.8/A). The matter was investigated by SI Kanwar Singh (PW.6) and ASI Hoshiyar Singh (PW.7). With the completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 451, 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. IN order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded his innocence. No evidence in defence was led. 4. TRIAL Court, after fully appreciating the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and other material placed on record, acquitted the accused of the charged offences for the reason that testimonies of prosecution witnesses were found not be inspiring in confidence. Hence, the present appeal. Attacking the judgment, rendered by the Court below, Mr.R.S.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has invited my attention to the testimony of the prosecutrix. According to him, her version, inspires confidence. The Court erred in acquitting the accused which has resulted into travesty of justice. 5. Hence, the present appeal. Attacking the judgment, rendered by the Court below, Mr.R.S.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has invited my attention to the testimony of the prosecutrix. According to him, her version, inspires confidence. The Court erred in acquitting the accused which has resulted into travesty of justice. 5. ON the other hand, Mr.Ashwani Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, supports the judgment on the ground that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. 6. AS per complaint/FIR (Ex.PW.1/A) the incident took place at 6.00 AM, in the cowshed. The incident was witnessed by Mahesh and Naresh. When husband of the prosecutrix returned home at about 8.00 PM he was confronted. At that time, accused also gave beatings to her husband and threatened the entire family of dire consequences. Now when one examines the testimony of prosecutrix, so recorded in Court, one finds that there are material improvements, exaggerations and embellishments. Version narrated in the Court is totally different than what she first disclosed to the police. There are also material contradictions with regard to exact place of occurrence of incident. In Court, prosecutrix states that at about 5.30 PM she tied her livestock outside the cowshed. An altercation took place between the accused and her family members on the issue of supply of water to the tap commonly used by all. At that time accused tried to outrage her modesty. She also got hurt in the incident. Same day at about 8.00 PM, when her husband returned home, she narrated the incident to him. When both she and her husband confronted the accused, he gave beatings to her husband. Thereafter, she and her husband went to the Police Station and lodged the report. 7. SIGNIFICANTLY in the complaint, there is no reference of any such altercation. Further FIR was registered same day i.e. 16.05.2004 at about 17.15 PM. It bears signatures of both the prosecutrix and her husband. Now if her husband had returned home only at 8.00 P.M. then how is it that FIR was registered prior thereto i.e. at 17.15 PM. This falsifies the case totally shattering the foundation of the prosecution story and genesis thereof. 8. NOTICEABLY, prosecution has not explained the delay in registration of FIR. It is not that prosecutrix was alone at home. This falsifies the case totally shattering the foundation of the prosecution story and genesis thereof. 8. NOTICEABLY, prosecution has not explained the delay in registration of FIR. It is not that prosecutrix was alone at home. It is also not that she was under any fear, threat or apprehension that accused would kill her. At the time of incident, her major sons and close relatives were present. It has come on record that the nearest police station was just at a distance of just 5 kms and was easily and conveniently approachable by road. Also bus service was available at that point of time. Then why is it that prosecutrix failed to immediately report the matter to the police? This fact has not been explained. Police could have been informed on phone also. Thus, delay in lodging the FIR, in the instant case, having remained unexplained, also renders the prosecution case to be doubtful. It is next seen that in the complaint, prosecutrix categorically states that accused entered the cowshed where he tried to outrage her modesty. But in Court, she states that incident took place not inside the cowshed but outside in the open courtyard. Significantly she admits that in the neighbourhood there are houses of four other persons. She also admits that people were residing there. It remains unexplained as to why none from the neighbourhood was associated during investigation or examined by the prosecution in Court. It is not that these persons were either inimical to the prosecutrix or close to the accused. 9. NOTICEABLY no independent witness has been associated by the police. Mahesh (PW.3) is relative of the prosecutrix. He does not reside in the same village. When one closely examines his testimony, one finds the same to be not inspiring in confidence, for the very same reason for which testimony of PW.2 is unworthy of credence. In Court PW.2 states that he was also given beatings by the accused. PW.3 testifies having witnessed the same. At the cost of repetition, it be only observed that FIR was registered at 17.15 PM which is much prior to 8.00 PM the time when both disclose that accused gave beatings to PW.2. Hence, testimony of these witnesses stands contradicted from the documentary evidence on record. 10. PW.3 resides in another village. PW.3 testifies having witnessed the same. At the cost of repetition, it be only observed that FIR was registered at 17.15 PM which is much prior to 8.00 PM the time when both disclose that accused gave beatings to PW.2. Hence, testimony of these witnesses stands contradicted from the documentary evidence on record. 10. PW.3 resides in another village. He has not sufficiently explained as to what he was doing on the spot at the relevant point of time. Noticeably the incident took place at 6.00 AM. He has not been able to show as to whether his fields are in and around the place of occurrence of the incident or way to his fields is from the village where incident took place. As such, presence of this witness on the spot, in my considered view, is doubtful. Prosecutrix categorically states that incident was actually witnessed by her son Tek Chand (PW.5), but in Court Tek Chand does not support this version of hers. PW.1 further states that she suffered serious and grievous injuries. The open wound had to be stitched (three stitches), but medical record does not substantiate such fact. 11. THE Court below, in my considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that judgment of the trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 12. IT is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredient so as to constitute the charged offences. 13. THE accused person has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the lower appellate Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Courts below be immediately sent back.