ORDER : In Sessions Trial No. 427 of 1993, the respondent-accused was tried for the offence U/Ss 376, 313 IPC. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2004 acquitted the accused of charges leveled against him. The State is in appeal under Section 378(1) & (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal. 2. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses; P.W.3, the victim and P.W.2, the informant are the eyewitnesses. The defence of the accused is false implication due to land dispute with the mother-in-law of the informant. He examined one defence witness namely, Ram Briksha Bauri. The investigating officer did not find any mark of violence at the place of occurrence. The victim admitted in her cross-examination that she did not raise alarm or tried to escape when the accused had laid her down on the earth. P.W.2 did not corroborate the evidence of the victim when he deposed in the court that when he reached the room where the accused was trying to commit rape upon P.W.3, he found both of them in completely naked condition. Considering the various suspicious circumstances in the case and serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused from the charges framed against him. 3. Having reappreciated the entire evidence, we find that the trial court has rightly held P.W.2, not an eyewitness. The victim in her deposition did not claim that P.W.2 when entered the room tried to intervene. Evidence of P.W.2 on material aspects is not corroborated by the statement of the victim in the court. Though, P.W.2 claimed that when he raised hulla several people assembled at the place of occurrence, however, none has been examined by the prosecution. The victim also did not try to inform any of her several relatives in the neighborhood nor did any one of them visit her house. In the cross-examination, the victim admitted that there is old enmity with the accused and her brothers. The medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution story of rape. The victim was examined on the date of occurrence itself, i.e., 06.05.1988, however, no external or internal injury was found on the person of the victim. The pathological report also did not indicate presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab taken from the person of the victim. The medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution story of rape. The victim was examined on the date of occurrence itself, i.e., 06.05.1988, however, no external or internal injury was found on the person of the victim. The pathological report also did not indicate presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab taken from the person of the victim. The prosecution story of the victim being pregnant at the time of occurrence also stands falsified from the medical report (Ext.1). The evidence led by the prosecution does not connect the accused with the alleged commission of rape. The trial court has properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and the learned A.P.P. could not point out any compelling circumstance to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 4. The instant acquittal appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.