Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Cr. MP(M) No.11750/2013 Delay of 52 days in filing the appeal, in our considered view, has been sufficiently explained by the applicant and the same is accordingly condoned. Application stands disposed of. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record. 3. Accused Hardeep Singh was charged for having committed offences under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The accused stands acquitted in terms of judgment dated 10th June, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamipur, H.P. in Sessions trial No. 14 of 2012, titled as State of H.P versus Hardeep Singh. 4. We find that Court below has correctly appreciated the entire material while returning its findings that prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. We find that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which remains unexplained by the prosecution, as also the prosecutrix. The alleged incident took place in the night of 8th March, 2011 at about 9.30 P.M., yet FIR was registered on 10th March, 2011. 5. According to the prosecutrix, she immediately disclosed the incident to her sister-in-law, Smt. Vanita Devi (PW-2). It has not come on record that none else was present in the house at the time of occurrence of the incident who could not reach the authorities. It is also not the case of prosecutrix that she was under constant threat, fear and intimidation, preventing her from immediately reporting the matter to the police or the Panchayat/neighbours. 6. We also find that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecutrix and her sister-in-law. Testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be inspiring in confidence. Prosecutrix states that she heard someone knock her door. She opened the door without making any inquiry. At that, accused forcibly entered her room, gagged her mouth and hands with a Chuni and thereafter sexually assaulted her. We find this version of her not believable. In fact it stands contradicted by PW-2, to whom the matter was immediately reported, according to whom, prosecutrix was neither tied nor her mouth was gagged with a Chuni. This contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution. Now if PW-2 reached the spot immediately then why is it that she did not take any steps of reporting the matter to anyone. 7. This contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution. Now if PW-2 reached the spot immediately then why is it that she did not take any steps of reporting the matter to anyone. 7. That apart, we find that mother-in-law of the prosecutrix as also her father-in-law have not been examined by the prosecution, for reasons best known to them. They were the best persons to have explained the delay in lodging the FIR. 8. As such, we find that findings returned by the Court below are totally in consonance with settled proposition of law. Testimony of prosecutrix does not inspire any confidence and cannot be relied upon for holding the accused guilty of the alleged crime. As such, we see no reason to grant leave to appeal and the application is dismissed.