ORDER 1. The appellant/State has challenged the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna in Special S.T.No.131/2003 on 22.1.2010, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges under sections 452, 354 of IPC and under section 3(i)(xi) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The learned Panel Lawyer submitted that testimony of the complainant has been corroborated by Kailash PW 5) as well as the FIR. The learned trial Court has committed error in holding that delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. It is prayed that thus the learned trial has committed error in acquitting the respondent from the charges. 3. I have perused the record. As per the prosecution case, complainant was lying on cot after cooking food at about 8.00 – 9.00 p.m. Kishan entered in her house and caught hold of her. When complainant raised alarm, her mother-in-law Kanchanbai, Jeth Jamnalal, husband Gyarsiram came there, then respondent ran away. The complainant in her cross-examination has stated that her husband was taking meal. When she raised alarm then he came. She has denied that her husband was gone to agricultural field, but her husband Gyarsiram (PW 3) has stated that he went to agricultural field. In para 7 the complainant has stated that her husband was taking meal in the same room, but her husband has stated that when he came back from his field he saw accused was coming out from his house. 4. The prosecution has not examined the mother-in-law Kanchanbai and Jeth Jamnalal, who reached the spot. Kanchanbai is the mother-in-law and Jamnalal is Jeth of the complainant. No explanation has been given why they have not been examined. The incident took place on 22.7.2003 at 8.00 – 9.00 p.m. while the report has been lodged on the next day at 15.30 hours. Gyarsiram (PW 3), who is the husband of the complainant, has stated in para 5 that Kailash and Madholal told him to lodge the report, hence he has lodged the report after three days of the incident. He has further admitted that Kailash and Madholal has not come to the place of occurrence. They assured him that they will give evidence on behalf of them. He has categorically admitted that if Kailash and Madholal have not assured him he would not lodge the report. He has further admitted that Kailash and Madholal has not come to the place of occurrence. They assured him that they will give evidence on behalf of them. He has categorically admitted that if Kailash and Madholal have not assured him he would not lodge the report. In para 5 he has admitted that there is a dispute between the accused and Kailash and Madholal. 5. Considering the aforesaid evidence learned trial Court has properly and correctly appreciated the evidence. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. There is no ground to interfere with the well merited findings. Even if another view is possible on the same set of evidence, no ground is made out warranting admission of this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.