INDERMEET KAUR, J.

CRL.L.P. 469/2014 Leave is granted to the State. The Registry is directed to register the appeal. Petition disposed of. Crl Appeal No………/2015 (to be numbered)

1. The State has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment dated 22.05.2014 vide which the respondent Laxmi Kant Tiwari had been acquitted. He had been charge sheeted under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) but the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there are inherent contradictions in the versions of the witnesses and accordingly granting him the benefit of doubt, he had been acquitted.

2. This judgment has been assailed before this Court.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the discrepancies as noted in the versions of Anil Kant Gupta (PW-3) and the victim “C” (PW-4) are not made out; these inconsistencies were minor and would not make out a case of acquittal. There was also no reason for the false implication of the accused. Testimonies of Prem Lata (PW-1) and Lalit (PW-2) have also been ignored illegally by the trial Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a reply and addressed his su