Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.8.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kairana, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 185 of 2012, State v. Ahsan and others, in relation to Case Crime No. 243 of 2008 at Police State Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar. By the aforesaid order the accused persons have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 363, 372/511 IPC.

2. I have heard respective submissions for learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record as available on the file.

3. The factual matrix of this case as emanates from perusal of record reflects that appellant Shahjad being first informant lodged a written report at police station Kairana on 20.3.2008 around 1.00 p.m. to the effect that the daughter of the first informant aged 13 years has been kidnapped/enticed away by accused persons Ahsan, Balla, Kasim, Sajid and two unknown persons on 19.3.2008 around 7.00 p.m. This incident was witnessed by Nawab, Hakim and Salim. The first informant made hectic effort for his daughter but in vain. This report was lodged at Crime No. 243 of 2008 at police station Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar, under Section 363 IPC. Thereafter investigation took place and the victim was recovered in the meanwhile and after her medical examination and after completing necessary formality, charge-sheet under Sections 363, 372 and 511 IPC was filed against accused Ahsan, Balla, Kasim and Sajid. Thereafter the matter was duly committed to the Court of Sessions from where it was made over for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, after numbering the same as Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2012. During the course of trial, another accused Guljar son of Islam was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, after hearing the prosecution and the accused persons, charges under aforesaid sections of IPC were framed against accused persons, who denied the charges and opted for trial.

4. In turn, the prosecution was directed to produce its evidence whereupon the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses P.W.1 Shajad, father of the victim, P.W.2 victim herself, P.W.3 Nawab, P.W.4 Dr. Anita Garg, P.W.5 S.I. Karam Singh Pundir, P.W.6 S.I. Ramchander Singh, P.W.7 Constable Shishkewar Rana and P.W.8 Retired Dr. P.K. Jain and the evidence for the prosecution was closed.

5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons was recorded by the learned trial Judge under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statement accused termed their implication false on account of village party-bandi. The defence did not lead any evidence.

6. The learned trial Court after hearing the respective submissions of both the sides recorded aforesaid findings of acquittal. Consequently, this appeal against acquittal by the first informant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently persuaded this Court to believe in the involvement of the accused persons in kidnapping the minor girl for selling her out and the trial Court misread the evidence and circumstances as a whole and overlooked the act of criminality and recorded unjust finding of acquittal, which finding of acquittal cannot be said to supported by record, but the same is extraneous and the same cannot be relied upon. Conversely, the evidence on record vis-a-vis circumstances of the case profusely allude to the guilt of the accused persons. The trial Court was not justified in recording such finding of acquittal.

8. Learned AGA has objected the aforesaid arguments by submitting that the trial Court has rightly adjudged the veracity of the story after proper appraisal of the evidence on record vis-a-vis circumstances. To say that the finding of acquittal is based on extraneous material than the record is not warranted by the material already available on record.

9. The moot point involved in this appeal relates to fact whether the finding of acquittal is vitiated for the