Barin Ghosh, C.J. – There has been 65 days' delay in preferring this appeal. An Application for condonation of delay has been filed. That is not being objected to by the respondents. We have independently considered the aver­ments made in the Application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay, allow the Application. 2. Being aggrieved by the judg­ment and order, by which the Court be­low has refused to convict the respon­dents, appellant seeks to prefer an ap­peal and, accordingly, has filed an Ap­plication seeking special leave to prefer appeal. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on that Application. 3. Respondents were charged for offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(l)(x) of the Sched­uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Pre­vention of Atrocities) Act. 4. A report was lodged by the mother of the victim, where she indi­cated that the victim, a 17 years' old girl, is missing and, despite all efforts made, she could not be located. Later on, she informed the police station concerned that the whereabouts of her daughter have been located ard that she had been subjected to kidnapping and gang-rape. It was indicated that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. It was al­leged that the respondents, in turn, raped the victim. The victim was sent for medical examination, when it was found that there is no medical sign of rape of the victim. The medical officers also opined that she was 17 plus. Inves­tigation was completed and, thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the re­spondents. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charges were framed for the offences punishable under the provisions of law mentioned above. 5. The trial commenced, when, apart from the victim, no other prosecution witness appeared to corroborate the prosecution story. Before the charge-sheet was filed, the statement of the vic­tim was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 raped her. She did not say that respon­dent No. 1, namely, Sanjay had raped her. Sanjay was implicated for having kidnapped. Before the charge-sheet was filed, the statement of the vic­tim was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 raped her. She did not say that respon­dent No. 1, namely, Sanjay had raped her. Sanjay was implicated for having kidnapped. Insofar as Sanjay is con­cerned, the victim held out that Sanjay was known to her; she used to get chowmin from Sanjay; on the fateful day, she called Sanjay, when Sanjay asked her to come at a place; and, upon her reaching that place, Sanjay had taken her in his motorcycle to another place and, thereafter, left her there, whereupon, another accused, namely, Shalu came and took her to the house of another accused, namely, Saleem, where she was kept for three days and, in course thereof, she was raped by Shalu, Saleem, Naeem and Jayed. That Sanjay had taken the victim on tes motorcycle, was disbelieved by the Court below, inasmuch as, the victim could not say as to from which Public Call Office, she phoned Sanjay, nor she could give the mobile phone number of Sanjay. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that the victim was found in the company of Sanjay. The Court below lisbelieved the assertion of the victim that she was taken by Shalu and kept in the house of Saleem for three days and three nights on the ground that, according to the vic­tim, for three days, she did not leave the house of Saleem, nor did she relieve herself during those three days. The Court below felt that, according to the victim, she was fed during those three days and she was raped during those three days, but, during those three days, she did not go out of the house of Saleem even for relieving herself; is a situation not acceptable. The Court be­low found, which finding is not in dis­pute, that the house of Saleem was situ­ate in the vicinity of many other houses. According to the victim, after the three days' ordeal, Shalu had taken the victim and left her at Machchhi Mohalla. Ac­cording to the victim, after Shalu had left her at Machchhi Mohalla, Rohit came and took her to Dehradun and kept her in the house of his maternal uncle. According to the victim, after the three days' ordeal, Shalu had taken the victim and left her at Machchhi Mohalla. Ac­cording to the victim, after Shalu had left her at Machchhi Mohalla, Rohit came and took her to Dehradun and kept her in the house of his maternal uncle. Ac­cording to the victim, she could come, back from Machchhi Mohalla to her house without the assistance of anyone. Ac­cording to the victim, Shalu had left her at Machchhi Mohalla at around 10 O' clock in the morning. According to the prosecution, Machdihi Mohalla is a fish market. According to the victim, neither Shalu, nor Rohit, was armed. According to the victim's statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she was confined in Roorkee. According to her, she was not taken out of Roorkee. The Court below, in the circumstances, disbelieved that the victim was brought to Machchhi Mohalla by Shalu, whereaf­ter, she was left alone and, then, Rohit took her custody and took her to De-hradun. No other prosecution witness stated that they saw Shalu and the vic­tim, or Rohit and the victim, at any point of time. According to the victim, Rohit wanted to marry her off with her maternal uncle; however, in the house of the maternal uncle of Rohit situate at Dehradun, the victim was raped by Ro­hit, Javed and Matloob; thereafter, she was taken to the house of Rohit situate at Roorkee and, from there, to the house of Matloob, also situate in Roorkee, when her presence came to the notice of her mother; and, accordingly, on the next day, the mother went and recov­ered the victim. Apart from the victim, no prosecution witness had said that they saw the victim in the company of Rohit or Javed or Matloob. When the grown-up daughter was missing for a few days and it came to the knowledge of the mother that she is in the house of Matloob, instead of going to the house of Matloob soon after coming to know about the same, why did she go to the house of Matloob on the next day; was not explained by the mother of the vic­tim. These are the situations, for which, the Court below has not accepted the prosecution case. 6. These are the situations, for which, the Court below has not accepted the prosecution case. 6. Though the victim had asserted that she was subjected to sexual inter­course by the accused people, but as already indicated above, the said asser­tion was not corroborated. The victim was above 16 years' old. Though she held out that such sexual intercourse was without her consent, but, in the ab­sence of proof of sexual intercourse, such assertion will not bring about a presumption under section 114-A of the Evidence Act. Be that as it may, any pre­sumption is rebuttable and, in view of the evidence led by the prosecution itself through the victim and other prose­cution witnesses, while the assertions of the victim were not corroborated, the same were, on the other hand, de­stroyed by such evidence. 7. That being the state of evidence and such evidence having been meticu­lously noted in the judgment under ap­peal and there being no assertion in the memorandum of appeal that the facts narrated in the judgment under appeal are or any of them is an incorrect narra­tion; grant of special leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order under appeal will be an idle formality. We, accordingly, dismiss the Applica­tion for special leave to appeal. Conse­quentially, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. _______________