The trustworthiness of the prosecutrix's testimony and the requirement for compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the lower court.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by appellant/State seeking condonation of 109 days delay in filing the present leave to appeal petition.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant and also perused the present application. In this application, not even a single ground has been urged by the appellant seeking condonation of delay. This application has been filed without any application of mind and is also devoid of material particulars, but since we have heard the matter on merits, we allow the present application. The appellant shall ensure in future that at least application seeking condonation of delay should contain material particulars.

3. Accordingly, delay in filing the present criminal leave to appeal petition is condoned. Let criminal leave to appeal petition be taken on record.

4. Application stands disposed of.

5. Present leave to appeal petition has been preferred by the State under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, by which the respondent No.1/Firoz Khan has been acquitted of the charges framed under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506/384 of Indian Penal Code and respondent No.2/Karan @ Shyam Lal has been acquitted of the charges under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2015 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 289/2013 registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was introduced to respondent No. 1 in April, 2013, who introduced himself as Sameer. After this short introduction, respondent No. 1 started visiting the school of the prosecutrix and started talking to her on the phone. One day in the evening, respondent No. 1 called the prosecutrix to Sarojini Nagar and thereafter took her to DG Park where the respondent No.1 misbehaved with her and raped her. After this incident, the prosecutrix stopped talking to respondent No. 1 but he regularly tried to contact her. Since the prosecutrix did not respond, the respondent No. 1 threatened to commit suicide. After the threat of suicide, the friendship between the prosecutrix and respondent No. 1 got restored. One day respondent No. 1 took the prosecutrix to Jain Guest House in Yusuf Sarai and under the threat to slit her throat with a knife took nude photographs with his mobile and raped her. The respondent No.1 provided a mobile phone to the prosecutrix and directed her to remain in touch with him. The respondent No. 1 blackmailed the prosecutrix and took her to the same Guest House many times and committed rape on her on various occasions. The story of prosecution further is that the respondent No. 2/Karan, a friend of respondent No. 1, Caretaker in the Jain Guest House arranged a room for them without making any entry in the Guest Register at the reception. According to the prosecution, the respondent No. 1 extended threats to the prosecutrix and demanded money from her and the prosecutrix withdrew money from the ATM of her mother and gave the same to respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 asked the prosecutrix to convert to Islam and on refusal he threatened to upload her nude photographs on the internet. The story of the prosecution further is that the prosecutrix thereafter narrated all the incidents to her mother and an FIR under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376/384/506 of Indian Penal Code was registered on her complaint and both the respondents were arrested.

7. Respondent No. 1 was charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and section 506/384 of Indian Penal Code and respondent No. 2 was charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. Both the respondents claimed tr