JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 13.9.2006, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2005 - 7/2005, titled as Subhash Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby appeal filed by the respondent-accused against judgment dated 24.1.2005/28.1.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 289-II/2000, titled as State vs. Subhash Chand, stands allowed and order of conviction and sentence set aside, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix – complainant (PW-2) lodged F.I.R. No. 365 of 2000, dated 3.7.2000 (Ext. PW-1/A), at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, against the accused, under the provisions of Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code to the effect that on 1.7.2000 at about 8.00 a.m., while she had gone to fetch water, accused caught her and tried to outrage her modesty. When she raised alarm, accused fled away threatening her not to report the incident to anyone, failing which he would kill her family. The matter could not be reported to the police same day, as her father was not at home. Police conducted investigation and with its completion, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eight witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded. In defence accused pleaded false implication claiming prior animosity. He also tendered in evidence copy of judgment (Ext. DX). 5. Trial Court convicted the accused for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months for each of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. 6. In an appeal filed by the accused, lower appellate Court set aside the findings and judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 7. 6. In an appeal filed by the accused, lower appellate Court set aside the findings and judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 7. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, in relation to the charged offences and as to whether the lower appellate Court committed grave illegality/irregularity in allowing the appeal, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that lower appellate Court has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so led by the parties. 9. Version of the prosecutrix (PW-2), in my considered view, does not inspire confidence. Her explanation of not lodging the report till two days after the incident, does not inspire confidence. The fact of the matter is that she was not alone at home. There were other members, including male, in her house who could have reported the matter to the police or other authorities. The delay in the instant case acquires significance in view of her shaky and uninspiring version. In Court, she states that accused dragged her; took her to the bushes; made her lie on the ground; broke the string of her salwar; took off her clothes; pressed her breast; gave tooth bite on her cheek and wrote his name on her left arm with a thorn. When examined with her first version reported to the police (Ext.PW-1/A), one can only conclude that there are material improvements. The fact of dragging; taking off her clothes; accused writing his name on her arm is not so recorded there. Further in Court she states that accused had gagged her mouth which also was not so reported by her initially. She was confronted with her prior statement and no worthwhile explanation has come on record for not disclosing such facts. There are no signs of resistance. She did not raise any alarm. The incident took place in broad day light. It has not come on record that the place was secluded or far from habitation. 10. Prosecution tried to corroborate version of prosecutrix through the statement of her uncle Sh. Baldev (PW-3). However, one finds material contradictions there. There are no signs of resistance. She did not raise any alarm. The incident took place in broad day light. It has not come on record that the place was secluded or far from habitation. 10. Prosecution tried to corroborate version of prosecutrix through the statement of her uncle Sh. Baldev (PW-3). However, one finds material contradictions there. Close scrutiny of testimony of the prosecutrix reveals that she had not disclosed the occurrence of the incident to her uncle (PW-3) who however states that the incident was narrated to him by the prosecutrix on 1.7.2000 itself. If this was so, then why is it that matter was not brought to the notice of the authorities the very same day. 11. Sh. Narain Singh (PW-5), father of the prosecutrix, has only deposed what the prosecution wants the Court to believe but then he is not a spot witness. He cannot strengthen the prosecution case since testimony of prosecutrix stands disbelieved. 12. Conjoint reading of testimonies of material witnesses only reveals that they have not been able to prove the prosecution case, beyond reasonable doubt. No illegality or infirmity/perversity could be found in the appreciation of the evidence or the findings in the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court. There are improvements, which are major, embellishments and contradictions, rendering the testimonies of these witnesses to be shaky and unbelievable. 13. It cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that accused assaulted the prosecutrix with any intent of outraging her modesty or voluntarily caused hurt, and/or criminally intimidated her, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. It cannot be said that findings returned by the lower appellate Court are not borne out from record, are perverse, illegal, erroneous or have arisen out of incomplete appreciation of prosecution evidence. 14. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. Hence no interference is warranted in the instant case. Hence no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.