JUDGMENT : (K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 17.04.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.179 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku, whereby and whereunder the respondent herein/A6 was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 354 , 447 , 324 read with 149 IPC , accordingly, was acquitted of the said charges. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.11.2002, at about 07.00 PM, when the de facto complainant was brooming her front yard at Nowdu complex, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common intention to cause harm to the de facto complainant, and N. Durga Rao and N. Srinu, holding iron rods, sticks etc., criminally trespassed into her front yard. A1 and A2 outraged her modesty by pulling her clothes and forcibly made her fall on the ground. A3, A6 and A7 pushed her forcibly by putting their hands on her breasts, thereby insulted her. A2 caught hold her tuft and dragged her. On the instigation of A4 and A5, A3 beat N. Durga Rao with an iron rod on his left ankle and testicles. A4 and A5 fisted and kicked on his finger, thereby inflicted bleeding injuries. One Ch. Apparao and M. Manohar witnessed the occurrence. Based on the report submitted by the de facto complainant on 21.11.2002, at about 07.00 am., a case in Crime No.110 of 2002 of Penugonda Police Station was registered against A1 to A7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 447 , 354 and 325 IPC . After completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 354, 324 , 447 read with 149 IPC . 3. Originally, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A7 and the case was committed to the Court of Session. At the time of framing charges, when the appellant herein/A6 was absent, the case against him was separated and numbered as SC No.179 of 2005 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. 4. 3. Originally, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A7 and the case was committed to the Court of Session. At the time of framing charges, when the appellant herein/A6 was absent, the case against him was separated and numbered as SC No.179 of 2005 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. 4. On appearance of A6, charges under Sections 147 , 148, 354, 324 , 447 read with 149 IPC were framed, contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A6 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. 7. On behalf of A6, none was examined and no documents were marked. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found A6 not guilty of the charges leveled against him and, accordingly, acquitted him, vide impugned judgment dated 17.04.2006 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A6 beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present appeal. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submits that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted A6 on the ground that there is abnormal delay in filing the complaint against the accused. He further submitted that the case against A1 to A5 and A7 ended in acquittal. According to him, non-explanation of the delay in filing the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case, since the delay is only for 12 hours. According to him, since the present case is not a faction ridden case, the delay as alleged would not go to the root of the case. He further submitted that non-seizure of the iron rod is also not a fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order of acquittal and convict the respondent/accused. 10. Heard. Perused the evidence on record. 11. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. He further submitted that non-seizure of the iron rod is also not a fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order of acquittal and convict the respondent/accused. 10. Heard. Perused the evidence on record. 11. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 12. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab , [ AIR 1962 SC 439 ] , wherein it is held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons? and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State , 1952 SCR 193 : ( AIR 1952 SC 52 ) ; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab , 1953 SCR 418 : ( AIR 1953 SC 459 ) . The use of the words, „compelling reasons? The use of the words, „compelling reasons? embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons?. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons? but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 13. The prosecution alleged that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common intention to cause harm to the de facto complainant (PW.1). The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that PW.1 and A1 were residing in separate portions in one house. A3 and A7 are living separately from A1. It is alleged that on the date of the incident, A1 came hurriedly and pulled the saree of PW.1; A2 pulled her hair and pushed her down; A3, A6 and A7 beat on her chest and A4 and A5 pulled her saree with an intention to insult her. According to PW.2, he went to the place of incident along with N. Durga Rao and observed A1, A4 and A5 abusing PW.1 and all the accused beating PW.1 and pushing her down. When PWs.2 and 6 intervened, the accused are alleged to have beaten them. The charge sheet version goes to show that A1 to A7 were holding iron rods and sticks and criminally trespassed into the land of PW.1. PWs.1, 2 and 6 have not stated that the accused were holding iron rods and sticks at the time of incident. The accusation against A3 is that he is alleged to have beaten one N. Durga Rao on his testicles with an iron rod. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6. At one point of time, they state that the accused were holding iron rods and during their further examination they stated that the accused beat PW.1 with hands on her chest. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6. At one point of time, they state that the accused were holding iron rods and during their further examination they stated that the accused beat PW.1 with hands on her chest. Of course, PW.6 stated that A3 beat him with iron rod on his testicles. Except this, there is no allegation against the accused that they beat with iron rods and sticks. It is pertinent to mention here that the said iron rod was not seized by the police. 14. It is relevant to mention here that when the incident was going on, husband of PW.1 was very much present at the scene of offence. If really he was present at the scene of offence, he might have gone to the rescue of PW.1 and might have filed a complaint against the accused immediately thereafter. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that there is delay of 12 hours in lodging the complaint against the accused. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 20.11.2002 at about 07.00 PM, whereas PW.1 lodged the police report on 21.11.2002 at about 07.00 AM. Further, FIR was sent to the Court on the next day i.e. on 22.11.2002 at about 10.30 AM. The Court is situated about 1 ½ KMs from the Police Station and there is no reason as to why so much delay was caused in sending the FIR to the Court. 15. More over, there were disputes between the accused and the prosecution party and cases and counter cases were registered against each other. This Court further observed that PWs.1, 2 and 6 stated that they have received injuries. A perusal of the medical evidence goes to show that their ocular evidence does not corroborate with the medical evidence. According to the Doctor PW.7, no visible injuries were found on PWs.1, 2 and 6. Apart from the same, the police did not seize the clothes of the injured and not examined the husband of PW.1 nor cited him as a prosecution witness. With regard to the place of incident also, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not consistent. No doubt, mere delay in lodging the report alone, is not a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution version. With regard to the place of incident also, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not consistent. No doubt, mere delay in lodging the report alone, is not a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution version. But, in the case on hand, in view of the delay, coupled with the aforesaid circumstances, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the alleged incident, as suggested by the prosecution, is said to have taken place or not. Since the case against other accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 ended in acquittal, the case of the appellant herein/A6 also stands on the same footing to that of A1 to A5 and A7. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is unambiguous and there are no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 17.04.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.179 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.