As per case facts, the defacto complainant, an SC woman, alleged that the appellant, an MBC man, forcibly entered her house, committed house trespass, and sexually assaulted her on 05/06.09.2013. ... She reported the incident to her daughter-in-law after a day due to shock and pain, leading to police action and a medical examination. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for attempt to rape and house trespass. The appellant appealed to the High Court, arguing political rivalry, delayed complaint, inconsistencies in victim's account (door locked from inside), lack of neighbor testimony, and medical report issues (natural injury, no spermatozoa, doubts on evidence seizure). The question arose whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of attempt to rape and house trespass beyond reasonable doubt, considering the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and procedural aspects of the investigation. Finally, the High Court found that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, citing doubts regarding the complaint's authenticity, medical evidence (abrasion could be natural, no spermatozoa), and the appellant's claim of political rivalry and physical incapacity. The Court granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant, setting aside the conviction and acquitting him.