ORDER : 1. Application seeking impleadment as appellant no.2 is allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State. 3. We have perused the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court. Firstly, the High Court observed that though the incident happened on 12th August, 1997 in the afternoon, the First Information Report was belatedly recorded at around 9:00 p.m. The High Court also considered the deposition of PW-23 (Sheetal Singh) who admitted that he received the report of the incident at about 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on 12th August, 1997, but as the learned Judicial Magistrate was not available, he delivered the same on the next day. This report was not treated as a First Information Report. The third thing which is found by the High Court was that the Police Station was just 01 kilometer away from the scene of the offence which took place between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. The High Court also found that the FIR number was found to have been entered in a document which was created at 12:55 p.m. on 12th August, 1997. The High Court also found that a prominent political leader visited the hospital in the evening and that is how one more version of the offence was registered with the Police Station at around 9:00 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. in the form of the First Information Report. The High Court also noted that though the evidence of the Medical Officer, who was examined as a defence witness, showed that PW-1 was not unconscious and was able to depose, there was a delay in recording his statement. Moreover, DW-2 was not examined by the prosecution though he was a very relevant and important witness. The High Court came to the conclusion that as the earlier version of the incident was suppressed, it creates a doubt about the reliability of the prosecution’s case. 4. We find that these findings recorded by the High Court are possible findings which could have been recorded on the basis of the evidence on record. Even assuming that another view was possible to be taken, that is no ground to interfere in an appeal against acquittal. 5. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.