JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02.05.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 65/2011, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges for the offences punishable under sections 458 and 376 IPC. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that the learned trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offences, for which he was charged, though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused-respondent by producing cogent and reliable evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that from the statement of the prosecutrix PW.2, charges against the accused-respondent for commission of offences punishable under sections 458 and 376 IPC are proved but the learned trial court has disbelieved the said statement without giving any sufficient reason. 3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 4. The learned trial court has found several contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has observed that though the prosecutrix has stated that her husband entered into the room after hearing some noise, whereas PW.4 Om Prakash stated that he went into the room after hearing the cries of the prosecutrix. The learned trial court also found that as per the medical report, it has not been proved that the prosecutrix received injuries on her body i.e. her breast etc. as stated by her in the report. The learned trial court has also found that the police did not find any evidence of scuffle between the husband of the prosecutrix and the accused in the room, and the pieces of the bangles were not recovered by the police from the place of incident, though the prosecutrix stated that when the accused was committing rape on her, her bangles broke into pieces. The learned trial court has also observed that though the police recovered a mobile phone from the place of incident, which was allegedly used by the prosectrix to call the accused at her house but despite obtaining the call details, the police had not investigated about the said aspect of the matter to ensure that the accused-respondent went to the house of the prosecutrix on her call. The learned trial court has also observed that the medical report as well as the serological report are not in conformity with the statement of the prosecutrix and there was a possibility that when the accused-respondent went to the house of the prosecutrix on her call, the husband and relatives of the prosecutrix found the accused-respondent in an objectionable condition with the prosecutrix and, therefore, they assaulted him, on account of which the accused received injury on his ear. The learned trial court has also found that the accused, the prosecutrix and her husband are known to each other as earlier, they used to cultivate the agriculture field in partnership. After considering the whole prosecution evidence, the learned trial court has held that the version of the prosecutrix or other witnesses cannot be relied upon on account of serious contradictions and, therefore, has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused-respondent. 5. After carefully perusing the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the finding arrived at by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse in any manner and the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against him for commission of the offences punishable under sections 458 and 376 IPC. 6. Hence, no case for interference is made out and the leave to appeal filed by the State is rejected.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******