Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.3.2002, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the opposite party no. 2 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.9.2000, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro at Chas in G.R. Case No.1324 of 1995, convicting the O.P. No. 2 for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year has been allowed and the opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

2. An FIR was instituted by the petitioner, in which it was alleged that the opposite party no. 2 on 30.8.1995 at about 2.10 P.M. had touched the front portion of the body of his daughter. It has been alleged that the victim had disclosed that the opposite party no 2 had pressed her breast and had fondled her thigh several times. Based on the aforesaid allegations, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 433/1995 was instituted under sections 354/351 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After investigation culminated in submission of chargesheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 29.3.1996 under section 341/354 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was transferred to the court of Shri B. Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro. After charges were framed trial commenced. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro at Chas by judgment dated 19.9.2000 was pleased to convict the opposite party no. 2 for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The appeal preferred by the opposite party no. 2 being Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2000 was allowed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro by judgment dated 22.3.2002 and the opposite party no. 2 was acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the learned appellate court, the petitioner has preferred the present application.

4. Heard Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate court without considering the oral evidence adduced by the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution had passed an order of acquittal. It has further been submitted that consistent evidence has been given by P.W-3, the victim, which has been corroborated by two school students being P.W-1 and P.W-2, who had also given statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the learned appellate court had highlighted the minor contradictions and discrepancies appearing in the prosecution case to set aside the order of conviction and sentence. It has also been submitted that since the prosecution had been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the judgment passed by the learned appellate court deserves to be set aside.

6. Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, supporting the impugned judgment has stated that there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR without there being any plausible reasons for such delay. Learned counsel submits that the statements of the victims as well as P.W-1 and P.W-2 were never recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the Investigating Officer of the case had failed to establish the place of occurrence. It has been submitted that only in order to malign the reputation of the opposite party no. 2 who was a Vice Principal in St. Xaviers School, Bokaro, FIR had been instituted.

7. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.

8. P.W-2-Sukanya Chakraborty has deposed that at the time of incident, she was in class IX in St. Xaviers School, B.S. City. She has further stated that 4-5 days prior to her half yearly examination in