JUDGMENT This appeal is directed by the State against the judgment and order dated 12.9.88 passed by Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Neemuch, in Cr. Case No. 60/88 whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charge u/s 509 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 12.4.85 the respondent, a lecturer, at about 7 p.m. when Sonu (PW 4) aged about 6 years, was playing with the children of the respondent, called her in his room and put off his 'Chaddi' and asked her to told his male organ in her hand and suck it and also inserted his finger in her 'Chaddi'. She ran from there and narrated the incident to her mother, Shiv Kumari (PW 2) and also to neighbours Sunderlal (PW I) and his wife Shantidevi (PW 3). Sunderlal went to P.S. Neemuch and submitted written report Ex. P-1. Crime was registered. After completion of investigation, challen was filed. Respondent pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the respondent of the charge u/s 509 IPC. Hence, this appeal by the State. It is settled that in appeal against acquittal the Appellate Court has to give due weight to the views of the trial Court which had an added advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. Even if two views are possible, the view of the trial Court has to be accepted unless the judgment of the trial Court was perverse and material evidence was left from consideration. Now I shall examine the prosecution evidence in the light of the above principle. It has come in the evidence of Sonu (PW 4), aged about 6 years old, that she had gone to the house of the respondent. The respondent took her into his room and opened his 'Chaddi' and asked her to hold his male organ in her hand and suck it. She ran from the room and told the incident to her mother Shiv Kumari Joshi (PW 2), Sunde rial (PW I) and Shantidevi (PW 3). All these witnesses supported her statement. They stated that Sonu told them that the respondent put off his 'Chaddi' and asked her to hold his penis and suck it. He also put his finger in her 'Chaddi'. Shiv Kumari also narrated the incident to Shantidevi (PW 3). The statement of Sunderlal has becn corroborated from the FIR Ex. All these witnesses supported her statement. They stated that Sonu told them that the respondent put off his 'Chaddi' and asked her to hold his penis and suck it. He also put his finger in her 'Chaddi'. Shiv Kumari also narrated the incident to Shantidevi (PW 3). The statement of Sunderlal has becn corroborated from the FIR Ex. P-I lodged by him. The learned trial Judge discarded the testimony of Sonu and these witnesses on the basis of some minor contradictions. No doubt, Sonu was a child witness but the learned trial Court before recording her statement examined her and opined that she understood the question and thereafter her statement was recorded. It is true that some minor contradictions have occurred in the evidence of Sunderlal, Shiv Kumari Joshi and Shantidevi. They stated that Sonu told them that the respondent had put his finger inside her 'Chaddi' but sonu did not state this fact in her deposition. This fact also does not find place in FIR Ex. P-1. But merely on the ground of this discrepancy, the entire evidence cannot be thrown. The statement of Kumari Sonu that the respondent put off his 'Chaddi' and showed his male organ to her, and asked her to hold it and take the same into her mouth and suck it, has been corroborated by her mother Shiv Kumari Joshi, Sunderlal and Shantidevi. The learned Trial Judge committed error in saying that Sonu did not narrate the incident to Sunderlal and Shantidevi. The learned Judge did read the entire statement of these witnesses. These witnesses have no axe to grind against the respondent. Sunderlal denied the suggestion that his son was using unlawful means in examination and was copying and was caught by the respondent. It is true that Sunderlal and his wife Shatidevi had good relations with Shiv Kumari Joshi and her husband. But they had no enmity with the respondent, therefore, on. account of this fact their statements cannot be disbelieved. The trial Judge wrongly held that Sunder Lal and Shantidevi were interested witnesses. As they are neighbours, therefore, it was natural that they had good relations. The learned Trial Judge observed that Sonu was studying in Class III as Head-master Ram Sharan (DW I) stated, but her mother Shiv Kumari deposed that she was studying in Class II. But on this ground her statement cannot be held to be unreliable. As they are neighbours, therefore, it was natural that they had good relations. The learned Trial Judge observed that Sonu was studying in Class III as Head-master Ram Sharan (DW I) stated, but her mother Shiv Kumari deposed that she was studying in Class II. But on this ground her statement cannot be held to be unreliable. She appears to be an illiterate house-wife and commission of such mistakes are not unnatural. Shiv Kumari stated that when Sonu ran away from the house of the respondent, the latter chased her while Sonu did not make such statement. In my opinion, these contradictions are minor. Such type of minor contradictions bound to occure even in the statements of a truthful witness. As stated earlier, Ku. Sonu's statement has been corroborated by her mother Shiv Kumari and neighbours Sunderlal and Shantidevi. FIR Ex. P-2 also supported the prosecution case. There was no animosity amongst the respondent and the prosecution witnesses. In my opinion, from the above evidence, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent, intending to insult the modesty of Sonu, exhibited his male organ to her and thereby committed an offence u/s 509 IPC. The learned trial Judge commjtted error in acquitting the respondent of the charge u/s 509 of the IPC. I, therefore, set-aside the impugned judgment and convict the respondent u/s 509 of the IPC. I also heard on the point of sentence. It is true that the respondent was lecturer and this sort of action was unbecoming for a lecturer but at the same time, this fact cannot be overlooked that this incident took place 15 years back, in the year 1985. After such a long lapse of time, no strict view was required to be taken. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that this was the first offence of the appellant, he is admonished under probation of offenders Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above.