JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present appeal is preferred with 45 days’ delay. We have perused the accompanying affidavit to the application seeking condonation of delay. We are satisfied that delay has been property explained. Therefore, 45 days delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 2. Application seeking condonation of delay (CRMA No. 1694 of 2015) is allowed. 3. Present appeal is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 16.05.2015, passed by Special Sessions Judge, POCSO, Haridwar in Special Session Trial No. 212 of 2014, whereby accused / respondent was acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections, 323, 341, 377 I.P.C. and under Section 3(a)/4 of POCSO Act, 2012. 4. Victim, a minor boy about 14 years on 11.05.2014, has informed the Police that when he was roaming in the Har Ki Pari area, accused 2 Baba met him; he offered food and took him towards the bridge and has committed unnatural sex upon him. 5. While appearing in the witness box, victim PW1 has stated that when Baba (accused) was sexually assaulting him, people gathered on the spot and have caught Baba (accused) on the spot and, thereafter, police was informed telephonically; Police reached on the spot and took both of them to Police Station; where he has narrated the entire story to the Police. To the contrary, PW3 S.I. Vinod Kumar, while appearing in the witness box, has stated that victim boy came to the Thanna and narrated the incident orally and his oral compliant was reduced in writing and, thereafter, Police went to the spot and Baba (accused) was arrested from the spot. There is a major contradiction in the statement of PW1 victim and PW3 S.I. Vinod Kumar. Not only this, medical examination of the victim boy does not suggest any sexual assault nor any abrasion was found on the body of the victim boy, therefore, learned Trial Court has observed that sexual assault with the victim has not been proved beyond doubt. 6. In an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, ordinarily, judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed lightly even if two views are possible. Judgment of acquittal can be disturbed or reversed only when same is found to be totally perverse or prosecution is able to prove that some important piece of evidence was left out to be considered by the Trial Court which could have resulted into the conviction. Judgment of acquittal can be disturbed or reversed only when same is found to be totally perverse or prosecution is able to prove that some important piece of evidence was left out to be considered by the Trial Court which could have resulted into the conviction. No such piece of evidence has been pointed out to us. 7. In view of the above discussion, no useful purpose would be served in granting leave to appeal. 8. Consequently, leave to appeal is declined. In the result Government Appeal is also dismissed.