ORDER :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act and Created for adjudication of Rape Cases), Court No. 14, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 2016, Crime No. 592 of 2016, registered under Section 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act), in Police Station -Kotwali Sahar, District - Hardoi, whereby the Court acquitted the accused- respondents Prem, Rameshwar, Ramteerth and Parmeshwar.

2. In compliance of this Court's order dated 08.01.2021, the notices have been issued and as per office report dated 27.08.2021, notices have been served personally upon Respondent Nos. 1. Prem, 2. Rameshwar and 4. Parmeshwar, whereas served upon Respondent No. 3 Ramteerth through heir.

3. Heard Smt. Smriti Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State -appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and the lower court record.

4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal as culled out from the case of prosecution are:-

i. On 26.10.2016 a First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) was registered in Crime No. 592 of 2016 under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. disclosing therein, that daughter of the informant aged about 15 years had disappeared while she was sleeping with her family and after enquiring it has been told to the informant that one Prem, resident of same village with the help of his brothers Rameshwar, Ramteerth and Parmeshwar enticed his daughter and took her away.

ii. After investigation the chargesheet was filed under Section 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, in the Court against the accused persons. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.

iii. The trial court framed charges against the accused Prem, Rameshwar, Ramteerth and Parmeshwar under Section 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

iv. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined P.W. 1 Gopal (informant), P.W. 2 the Prosecutrix (X), PW. 3 Dr. Smita Singh, P.W. 4 Dr. Indu Singh, Radiologist, P.W. 5 S.I. Javed Akhtar, P.W. 6 Lady Constable Harjit Kaur and P.W. 7 S.I. Rajkishor Kanaujiya.

v. As a documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved copy of F.I.R. Ext. Ka -1, statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext. Ka-2, Medical Examination Report of the prosecutrix Ext. Ka-3, Supplementary Medical Examination Report of the prosecutrix Ext. Ka-4, X-ray report Ext. Ka-5, Site Plan Ext. Ka-6, Chargesheet Ext. Ka-7, Chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka-8, Mukadama Kaymi/ General Diary Ext. Ka-9, Student Admission Register Ext. Ka-10, Fard Baramadgi Ext. Ka-11, and Fard Supurdginama Ext. Ka 12.

vi. Thereafter the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.), wherein, they denied the commission of crime and stated that the case has been registered falsely.

5. The trial court after hearing the arguments of both the parties and analyzing the evidence came to the conclusion that the F.I.R. has been lodged with the delay of four days without assigning any reason particularly, when the informant on the very next day of the incident came to know that his daughter was enticed and taken away by Prem and his two brothers. Neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statements / depositions, examination-in-chief and cross-examination the informant had never disclosed that from whom he got the information that the accused persons enticed his daughter and took her away.

6. It is further observed by the trial court that there are contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the deposition during examination-in-chief and cross-examination and at every stage the version has been changed. In her statement recorded