Pankaj Naqvi, J.;— We have heard Sri Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the informant in support of the admission of the present criminal appeal, which challenges the judgment of acquittal dated 29.06.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Ex-Cadre), Court No.1, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No. 1293 of 2012. 2. The prosecution alleged that the victim was married to one Sachin Kansal at Hapur. Immediately after marriage an additional dowry demand for a maruti car and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was made by the accused-persons from the victim. Due to dowry demand, the victim used to be physically and mentally tortured, so much so, that she was ousted from the house on 30.08.2009. However on account of re-conciliatory steps taken by her brother, the victim again went to the house of her in-laws on 06.02.2010. On 07.02.2010 at about 04:00 P.M., it was alleged that while the informant was all alone in the house, the father-in-law of the victim in inebriated state attempted to commit rape upon her. The victim shouted and came out of the house and later on informed his mother-in-law and her husband of the aforesaid act, who became infuriated and assaulted the victim. The victim came out of the house rang up her maternal uncle at Meerut, boarded a bus for Meerut, where she got herself medically examined in the Government Hospital. On the aforesaid allegations, a written report was submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, who directed for registration of the first informant report. 3. PW-1 the victim and PW-2 mother were the only witnesses of fact. PW-3 the doctor, who is alleged to have examined the injuries received by the victim stated that the nature of injuries, reference of which has been given in paragraph-36 of the judgment, were simple in nature, as they were all blueish signs of different dimensions. The trial court was taking a view that the evidence of PW-3, the doctor could not be relied upon as the said evidence was based on the photocopy of the injury report and not the original. Neither PW-3 brought original records, nor was there any explanation as to why he did not have the original records to prove the nature of injuries and thus his evidence was discarded. 4. Neither PW-3 brought original records, nor was there any explanation as to why he did not have the original records to prove the nature of injuries and thus his evidence was discarded. 4. Coming to the allegation of rape, the court below was taking a view that merely snatching the saree from the victim would not in itself amount to an offence under section 376/ 511 IPC. It is too naïve to state at this stage that in the commission of crime there are 4 stages, i.e., Intention, Preparation, Attempt and the Offence itself. The court below also took the view that once the victim was thrown out from the house, then notwithstanding the fact her father was residing in the same city, i.e., Hapur, yet she boarded a bus for Meerut. The court below was also taking a view that the maternal uncle of the victim was a doctor at Meerut, who probably got the injuries manipulated so as to make out a case for the victim. Moreover, it was admitted between the parties that the accused visited along with the victim to her house on 05.08.2009, a Raksha Bandhan day. If that be so, then non-examination of the brother of the victim, who is alleged to have played a mediatory role in getting the victim back to house of her in-laws just a day before the occurrence was also fatal for the prosecution. The prosecution also could not establish that any complaint with regard to dowry demands was ever made to any authorities. 5. Considering the nature and quality of evidence, the court below was taking a view that it was not a case where, it could be said that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the court below in acquitting the respondents was the most probable and possible view, which cannot be faulted as being perverse. 7. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is declined and the appeal is dismissed. _____________