JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant State. 2. This appeal has been filed by the State against the Judgment of Acquittal dated 9th March 2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in S.T. No. 101 of 2014, whereby, the sole respondent, who was facing the trail for the offences under Sections 323, 376/511 and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted, stating that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the State after a delay of 105 days, for condonation of which, I.A. No. 6547 of 2016, has been filed, stating that the delay had been caused due to procedural delays. Another I.A. No. 6548 of 2016 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal. 4. The impugned Judgment shows that the case was instituted on the basis of the complaint, filed by the complainant-lady against the respondent, making allegations of assault, attempting to commit rape and also outraging her modesty by disrobing her. It is stated in the complaint petition that when attempt of committing rape was made upon her, PWs came and saved her and the accused fled away. She had also stated that she went to the Police Station, but seeing the accused sitting there, she returned back, after which, she filed the complaint in the Court. It appears that the complaint was sent investigation by police, and after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. 5. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the charge was framed against the accused respondent for the offences under Sections 323, 376/511 and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 6. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom, PW-2 Dilip Rana turned hostile. The case was supported by the complainant informant herself, her father, her son and her daughter. No independent witness was examined in the case. 7. PW-1 Bablu Rana, the son of the complainant-informant, has stated in his cross-examination that when he went to the place of occurrence, he only saw his mother weeping and the occurrence was not disclosed to any villager. No independent witness was examined in the case. 7. PW-1 Bablu Rana, the son of the complainant-informant, has stated in his cross-examination that when he went to the place of occurrence, he only saw his mother weeping and the occurrence was not disclosed to any villager. PW-3 Ashutosh Rana, the father of the complainant-informant, had not gone to the place of occurrence, and he was only informed about the occurrence. PW-4 Suman Devi is the daughter of the complainant-informant and though she has supported the case, but in her cross-examination, she has admitted that in the year 2010, she had also filed a case of rape against one Pradip Rana, which was later compromised. She has also stated that at the time of occurrence, no one else was present at the place of occurrence and the occurrence was not disclosed to any villager. The complainant-informant had examined herself as PW-5 and she admitted in her cross-examination that though she sustained injury in course of occurrence, but she did not go to any doctor and also did not show any injury to the police. She also stated that though her sari was torn, but the same was not produced before the police. PW-6, the I.O. of the case, has also stated in his evidence that he has not seen any injury on the person of the informant. The husband of the complainant-informant has not been examined in the case. 8. The fact also remains that no independent witness has come forward to support the case, and the daughter of the informant, PW-4 Suman Devi has admitted in her cross-examination, that she had also filed a case of rape against one Pradip Rana, which she later compromised. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view, that in absence of any independent witness supporting the case, and in view of the fact that neither the injury upon the complainant-informant was proved, nor the torn sari was produced, the Court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge. As such, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, worth interference by this Court. 9. As such, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, worth interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, there being no valid reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment of acquittal, we do not find any valid reason for granting leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal and we also do not find any valid reason for condoning the procedural delay of 105 days in filing this appeal. Accordingly, both the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications stand dismissed. 10. Consequently the Acquittal appeal also stands dismissed being bereft of any merit. Application and appeal dismissed.