JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J. - Prosecution case initiated on written application of informant Siya Ram Yadav, in brief is that on 05.8.2002 at about 3.30 a.m. his daughter Kiran Kumari had gone to meet call of nature towards Kalia river with her grand mother. In the meantime. Accused respondent Mantu Yadav appeared there along with 3-4 unknown persons and forcibly taken away his daughter. This much was informed by the informant's mother after returning from the field further by informant to mukhiya and other respectable persons of Mirzapur Panchayat. A written application was given to mukhiya also as he could assist the administration. Application was sent to Amarpur police station by Phuli Dumer Officer-in-Charge and matter was investigated by himself. After concluding the trial, case is ended in acquittal of the accused-respondent validity of which has been questioned by filing this appeal by the State. 2. In course of trial, in all eight witnesses are examined, they are PW 1 Jagdish Yadav. PW 2 Ramesh Yadav, PW 3 Ranjit Kumar Yadav, PW 4 Murto Devi. PW 5 Kiran Kumali @ Devi, PW 6 Siya Ram Yadav, PW 7 Dr. KIishna Sinha and PW 8 Parshu Ram Yadav. 3. PW 3 has not supported the prosecution case at all and PW 1 is also not supporting the prosecution case, save and except, handing over of Kiran Kumari in Jimmanama of the informant. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile. PW 7 medically examined the victim girl has not found recent sign of sexual intercourse, which is followed by no injury at all on part of the victim's body including her private part. Rest of the witnesses except PW 4 and PW 5 are hearsay witnesses. PW 4 is a witness to state only that victim had gone to meet the call of nature at the relevant time. This much act has been narrated by the victim herself with further add that she was taken to Banka, kept there for a day, committed repeated rape. She made alarm, villagers gathered, caught the both, handed over to police Phuli Dumer from where accused-respondent was sent to jail and she was given in Jimmanama of her father. 4. Both the witnesses have been doubted on the point of going to meet the call of nature. She made alarm, villagers gathered, caught the both, handed over to police Phuli Dumer from where accused-respondent was sent to jail and she was given in Jimmanama of her father. 4. Both the witnesses have been doubted on the point of going to meet the call of nature. On this point PW 5 states in Paragraph-8 that they were going to meet the call of nature daily, but not at the time of incident rather at about 5.00 a.m. Same is statement of PW 4 made in Paragraph-4 that their time to go to meet the call of nature was not 3.30 a.m., Reason behind doubt is shown presence of accused respondent at that time. In my view also, if someone is chased, he can be waited at routine time or from a short earlier. Really victim was intended to be kidnapped she should never be waited since 3.30a.m., or earlier to it on the date of occurrence. 5. Recovery is also doubted by doubting the evidence of victim alone as she made alarm on next day. villagers gathered, taken them into custody and handed over to the police. But none of the villagers appeared to state the same nor any of the police officials corroborated the incident of handing over of victim to them. Apart from this vital part, other circumstances are also discussed by the trial Court leaving no room to interfere. 6. Accordingly, this Government Appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.