ORDER : 1. None present for the State even in second call. 2. Delay condoned. 3. The instant special leave petition is directed against the judgment dated 25th September, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh rejecting the Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2014 preferred by the State for assailing the judgment dated 29th November, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence placed on record. 5. On going through the detailed judgment passed by the High Court, we find that the victim was a young girl about 17 years and 4 months of age at the time of the incident and went missing on 11th June, 2012. The complaint regarding the girl not being traceable was lodged by her elder sister (PW-2) at the Boileauganj Police Station on 12th June, 2012. 6. The prosecution claims that when the family members were returning home from the police station on 12th June, 2012 after lodging the report, the victim was found at Mohari near railway station by the complainant and her brother. She was weeping and on being consoled, she stated that she had been taken away by two persons in a pick up vehicle towards the Shimla side. She had never seen those two persons earlier nor were they known to her and that she did not remember the number of the vehicle. She did not give any significant details to her family members except the complainant that she had been raped. 7. The victim was enquired by the police officials on a number of occasions but she neither gave the details of the incident nor did she disclose the identity of the alleged assailants. For the first time, on 30th June, 2012, she gave out the names of the respondents as being the assailants who had subjected her to forcible sexual assault. The trial Court found innumerable contradictions and loopholes in the prosecution evidence and accordingly acquitted the respondents of the charges extending them the benefit of doubt. For the first time, on 30th June, 2012, she gave out the names of the respondents as being the assailants who had subjected her to forcible sexual assault. The trial Court found innumerable contradictions and loopholes in the prosecution evidence and accordingly acquitted the respondents of the charges extending them the benefit of doubt. The well-reasoned judgment dated 29th November, 2013 passed by the trial Court has also been affirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 25th September, 2024 which exhaustively discusses the evidence available on record, upholding the acquittal of the respondents. 8. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments of this Court that while considering an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court should be very slow in disturbing the findings of the acquittal which can be done only in a situation, where no view other than the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. If two views, one favouring the accused and the other favouring the prosecution are possible, then the appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its view over the view taken by the trial Court. 9. In the present case, we feel that the only permissible view is consistent with the innocence of the accused. Hence, there exist no plausible ground to entertain the special leave petition calling into question the acquittal of the respondents. 10. Two competent Courts, i.e., the trial Court and the High Court have recorded concurrent findings of facts in acquitting the respondents and rejecting the appeal preferred by the State against their acquittal. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in such concurrent findings of facts which ex facie do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 11. Resultantly, the special leave petition is dismissed on merits. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.