While letting off the accused, Narender Pal and Nishant, the judge cited an earlier judgement and said: ``When a judge is certain that there is no prospect of a case ending in conviction, valuable time of court should not be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing a procedure to pronounce conclusion on a future date.''

The judge also listed the discrepancies in the prosecution case. The victim reported the alleged rape to the police about eight months after the incident. ``Admittedly in the present case the complainant did not complain the factum of alleged rape even to her near relatives,'' the judge said.

According to the prosecution's case, which was based on the complaint lodged on November 20, 1996, the girl was a part-time domestic help at Nishant's house in Palam Colony. She used to work there in the absence of her mother.

The complaint states that Nishant sexually the girl about eight months before the case was registered, and two days later the girl was again sexually assaulted by Nishant's neighbour Narender Pal when she went back to work.

Subsequently, the girl was allegedly sexually assaulted by both of them again. ``She did not report the matter to her mother then,'' the order states, adding that an FIR was registered at the Dabri police station after the girl became pregnant.

The judge added: ``No DNA analysis has been done by the State by comparing the blood of the accused and the child that was born. Corroborative evidence is lacking in the present case, which on the face of it appears to be an acquittal.''