JUDGMENT :

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

1. Heard Sri. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. Grounds and reasons assigned for condoning the delay are satisfactory.

3. Delay is condoned.

4. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal.

5. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed.

6. By way of instant Criminal Appeal, leave to appeal has been sought by the appellant-informant against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 passed by ADJ/Special Court (POCSO Act), Saharanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Arjun and Others) under Sections 354A, 354D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Gagalheri, District Saharanpur, whereby the accused- respondents Arjun, Rohit and Sumit have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 354A, 354D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act by the aforesaid order.

7. The claim of the appellant is based primarily on two counts, first, that the finding of acquittal is conjectural and presumptive. Secondly, that the same is not based on material on record. Trivial contradictions have been relied upon for recording finding of acquittal. Substantial piece of evidence, as emanating from the testimony of the victim, has been brushed aside arbitrarily and has not been acted upon by the trial court. The established fact of the age of the victim was also erroneously disbelieved by the trial court. As per the date of birth appearing in the school certificate, the victim was minor, aged about 15 years, however the trial court erred while it misread and presumed the age of the victim to be above 18 years. The wholesome view of the factual aspect and the testimonial merit of this case vis-a-vis the prevailing circumstances are fair enough to record conviction of the accused-respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. The judgment of acquittal is most casual and perfunctory. The finding of conviction on the face is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law more particularly in view of the material produced by the prosecution.

8. Also heard the learned A.G.A.

9. I have considered the entirety of the arguments as well as perused the certified copy of the judgment brought before this Court, available from Page No. 18 up to Page No. 34 of this file. As per the judgment, it appears that the victim, a student of Class-XI was studying in Siya Ram Inter College, Gagalheri, District-Saharanpur within Police Station-Gagalheri and she was returning back to her home after attending her tuition around 3:00 p.m., when an accident was caused with motorcycle by the accused-respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 at place Pashu Paith by dashing it with the victim, near paddy field, due to which the victim fell down on the ground. The accused in the meanwhile came from behind and began to harass her by touching her limbs. Apart from that, they also tried to drag her towards the sugarcane field, whereupon alarm was raised by the victim, when Subhash, Sanjay and others rushed to the rescue of the victim on the spot. Consequently, the accused-respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 fled away from the scene after threatening the victim. The informant went to report the matter at the Police Station-Gagalheri, but no action taken. When the accused came to know about the aforesaid development regarding approach to the police station being made by the victim side, the accused also threatened the informant side at around 5:00 p.m., the same evening i.e. in the evening of 28.8.2014. However, matter was lodged at the police station (Gagalheri) after interference of the S.S.P. Saharanpur and a case was registered at Police Station-Gagalheri, District-Saharanpur, under Sections 354 Ka, 354 Gha, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act at Case Crime No. 213/214. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondents. Charges under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and POCSO Act were framed rea