Mukta Gupta, J.

1. The respondent was tried for offences punishable under Sections 366/342 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and acquitted vide impugned judgment dated 21st November, 2014. Hence the present appeal by the State after leave to appeal was granted.

2. In her deposition before the Court the child victim PW-1 stated:-

“On 13.01.2013 again said 23.01.2013, I was going alone at around 5.00 p.m. to my maternal grandmother’s house, which is at the distance of two streets away from my house. Accused met me at the corner of the street. My father was not at home on that day and he was on his duty. Accused told me that he will take me to my father. Thereafter accused took me to his house. No one was present at the house of accused. At the house accused told me that he had taken a photograph of my mother while she was taking bath. Accused kept me at his house for two days and thereafter he left me in Shukra Bazar. Accused told me while leaving me at Shukra Bazar that this fact should not be told to the police, otherwise, he will again kidnap me. From Shukra Bazar, I came to my house with some unknown person and told the entire facts to my parents. My father called the police. Police took me to DDU hospital, where I was medically examined.

When I was in the captivity of the accused, he used to talk to me in filthy language and had also touched my private part (SUSU). The accused had also made me suck his organ used for urination. All these facts were told by me to the police uncle.

My statement was recorded before the Ld. Magistrate.

At this stage, one envelop with the seal of RS is taken out from judicial file. After breaking the seal, proceedings U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is taken out. Same is shown to the child victim. Child victim correctly identified her signature on her statement at point A and proceedings U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is now Ex.PW-1/A.

At this stage the child victim has been asked to identify the accused, who kidnapped her (The accused is standing behind a curtain and is unable to see the child victim and he has been further asked to close his eyes. However, child victim has been asked to identify the accused from the parting between the curtain).

After seeing the accused through the parting between the curtain, child victim has correctly identified the accused present behind the curtain.”

3. FIR No. 47/2013 under Section 363 IPC was lodged at PS Dabri, Delhi on the complaint of the father when the child victim was found missing since 6.30 PM on 23rd January, 2013. Despite search being made the child victim was not traceable. On 25th February, 2013 at 2.30 PM the complainant received a call from his wife stating that the child victim had returned home, whereafter she was taken to police station and for medical examination. No statement of the prosecutrix/child victim was recorded immediately. The respondent was arrested in another case where he stated to have allegedly made disclosure statement in respect of the present case. Thus he was produced before the Court and an application was made for test identification parade which the respondent refused stating that he had been taken at various places and shown to number of persons. It is only after the arrest of the respondent and his alleged disclosure statement that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. for the first time though she returned home within two days of her missing from her house. Though the father says that the prosecutrix returned on 25th February, 2013 however, as per the prosecutrix she came back on 26th January, 2013 at 2.00 PM on her own and nobody met her on the way. She knew the location of her house and though she met her family members, she did not disclose them anything but disclosed the fact only for the first time to the police uncle. As noted above the statement of the victim was recorded after nearly two months of the incident after t