JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the order dated 22.05.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.118/2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 01, North-West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, acquitting the accused/respondent in a case arising out of FIR No. 137/2013 under Section 354/354/354B/451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State states that the impugned order passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge (hereinafter referred to as, ‘learned ASJ’) is perverse, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, and is based upon misreading evidence and is demonstrably not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, it is against the basic provision of law. He further submits that the order of learned ASJ is based on conjectures and surmises and thus cannot stand the scrutiny of law and hence, deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submits that the learned trial court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, the reasoning given by the learned trial court for the acquittal of the respondent is based on the sound legal principle that the accused cannot be convicted unless the prosecution proves the case beyond any reasonable doubt. In the instant case, he submits that the respondent has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reason to believe the prosecution story.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2013, child victim ‘K’, aged about 16 years, approached Police Station Bharat Nagar and got her statement recorded. On 25.04.2013, at about 9:15 AM, she was alone inside her house, when the accused, who is her brother-in-law (Jija) came there and started molesting her. He tore her clothes and held her by her hand. On her shouting, her younger brother Sunil came to her rescue, thereafter, the accused ran away. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the child victim “K”, the instant FIR was registered. The matter was entrusted to the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as, “IO”), namely, ASI Om Pal Singh. Thereafter, IO went to the spot along with the child victim “K”, prepared the site plan and took into possession the clothes of the child victim “K”, worn by her on the date of the incident. Subsequently, the IO collected the photographs of the child victim “K”, showing injuries on her body and also collected her age proof from her school. Thereafter, the accused was arrested on 20.05.2013. On 25.06.2013, the statement of the child victim “K” under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. got recorded. After the completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, vide order dated 24.09.2013, charges under Section 451 of the IPC, read with Section 7 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, punishable under Section 8, 11 (ii) & 12 of the Act alternatively under Sections 354/354-A/354-B of the IPC were framed against the accused.

6. Respondent/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses to prove its case. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The list of prosecution witnesses is as under: -