JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and perused the material on record. 2. This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 30.3.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Mainpuri in Special Sessions Trial No. 172 of 2014, State of U.P. versus Pradeep, arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2013, under sections 376, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Ghiror, District Mainpuri, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that incident took place on 17.11.2013 at about 12.30 P.M. while victim Rupesh Kumari, sister of complainant, was returning after fetching grass for buffalo, she was called by accused respondent Pradeep on some false pretext and rape was committed on her. It has been next submitted that as per First Information Report, age of the victim was about 13 years only at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel has contended that the brother and uncle of the victim have supported the prosecution story, however, the trial Court against the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Considered the submissions. 4. The age of victim has not been proved by the prosecution. Medical examination report has not supported the prosecution story. As per medical examination report, no mark of internal or external injury was found on the body of the victim. Not only that the medical examination report available on record is of one Sarita and not of Rupesh Kumari (victim). Mother and grand mother of the victim have not been examined in support of the prosecution version. It is admitted fact that prior to the alleged incident some quarrel had taken place in between the informant, brother of the victim, and the accused respondent. 5. We do not find any factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below. Moreover, the view taken by the court below is a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity. Moreover, the view taken by the court below is a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected. Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P. & Another Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 2073 of 2016 For the Petitioner : Rakesh Kumar Rathore. For the Respondent : G.A. Since the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected, consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. 27.4.2016