Pritinker Diwaker, J
1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 09.01.2003 passed by Special Judge, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 62/2002
acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge under Sections 342, 376, 511 IPC and 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Caste    and Â
Scheduled   Tribe  (Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act (hereinafter referred to as ""Special Act"").
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 18.04.2002 FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 14 years at the relevant time
alleging that on 16.04.2002 at about 12 noon when she had gone to the house of her friend Khemin Bharti but nobody was present there at that time.
Meanwhile, the respondent/accused and one Prakash came there from the back-side, removed their clothes, tore her Kurta and made an attempt to
insert their private part into that of her. It is alleged that when she raised an alarm, they filthily abused her in the name of her caste. Based on this
report, offences under Sections 342, 376, 511 IPC and 3 (1) (xii) of the Special Act were registered against the two. The other accused Prakash
however being juvenile was tried in the Juvenile Court. Court below then framed the charge against the respondent/accused accordingly.
3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/respondent has
also been recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations made against him and pleaded innocence
and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record the Court below has acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges levelled
against him and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that the Court below has committed an error of law in acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges
levelled against him by ignoring the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
6. Counsel for the respondent/accused however supports the judgment impugned and submits that while recording the finding of acquittal, the Court
below has taken note of the evidence on record in proper perspective and there is no infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident when she was returning from the house of her friend Khemin Bai, respondent/accused
along with juvenile accused Prakash came there from the back side, shut the door, removed their clothes, tore her clothes also, threw her down on the
ground and made an attempt of inserting their private part into that of her and when she abused them they left the spot. From the statement of this
witness, it appears that there was some money dispute between her father and the respondent/accused who had even reported the matter to the
police. This apart, there is two days' un-explained delay in lodging the report and that the prosecutrix did not even inform her mother about the
incident. Devki Bai (PW-2), Shilendra Kumar (PW-3), Pannalal (PW-6) and Devnarayan (PW-8) have not supported the case of the prosecution.
Prosecutrix has not even been medically examined nor any cogent evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show that on the date of incident
the prosecutrix was minor.
9. All this factual scenario makes this Court to hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the respondent/accused made an attempt to
sexually assault the prosecutrix. That apart, there is two days' delay in lodging the report but no explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to
how did it occur. Even the medical examination of the prosecutrix has not been conducted nor did the prosecution has adduced any evidence to show
that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident. Being so the Court below has been quite justified in recording the finding of acquittal on the
basis of evidence before it. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment awarding acquittal to the respondent/accused. Even otherwise, as regards
appeal against the finding of acquittal, it is a settled position of law that if on the basis of material on record two views can be drawn then the
preference has to be given to the one favouring the accused.
10. On viewing the evidence on record and being conscious to the existing legal position referred to above, this Court finds no substance in the appeal
and accordingly the same is dismissed. Judgment impugned is affirmed.
