ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. The State of Rajasthan has approached this Court by way of this application under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. craving leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 07.05.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases-cum-Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 72/2014 acquitting the respondents accused from the charges under Sections 363, 366A, 376D IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. 2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. 3. The FIR (Ex.P/21) of the case was lodged by the complainant Shanker Singh at the Police Station Kachhola on 24.01.2014 with the allegations that on the previous date, his sister (the victim) had gone to tie the cattle in the yard at about 07.30 pm. However, she did not return on which, inquiry was made and it came to light that Ram Singh had kidnapped her. It was alleged that the victim was aged 16 years and was a minor. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 11/2014 was registered at Police Station Kachhola and investigation commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Ram Singh and Vimal Singh for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376D IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and against Smt. Sugna Kanwar and Smt. Chanda Kanwar for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376D and 120B IPC and Sections 3/4 and 16/17 of the POCSO Act and against the accused Ladulal for the offences under Section 376D IPC and Section 3/4 and 16/17 of the POCSO Act. Charges were framed against the accused in the same terms, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution story and claimed that they had been falsely implicated. The trial Judge, while deciding the case vide the impugned judgment, came to a conclusion that the school certificate on the basis whereof, the prosecution projected the victim to be minor was not reliable. The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses regarding admission of the victim in the school was vacillating. The Principal who proved the school certificate namely Hari Singh Meena, admitted that the victim was not admitted in the school in his presence. The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses regarding admission of the victim in the school was vacillating. The Principal who proved the school certificate namely Hari Singh Meena, admitted that the victim was not admitted in the school in his presence. The admission form of the victim was not proved by the prosecution. A significant contradiction was noticed by the trial court inasmuch as, the victim as well as her sister were admitted in the school on the same day i.e. on 06.08.2005. A difference of one year was shown in the age of the two sisters in the school record whereas, as per the statements of the parents of the victim, there actually was a difference of three years in the age of the two girls. In this background, the trial court held that the school certificate of the victim wherein her date of birth was recorded as 25.05.1999 was not reliable. Opinion was given in the medical certificate (Ex.D/3) issued by the Medical Jurist of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara on 26.01.2014 that the victim was between 18 to 20 years of age on the date of her examination. The prosecution could not lead any other convincing evidence at the trial court so as to satisfy the court that the victim was minor on the date of incident. The victim herself was examined as PW-4 at the trial. In her cross examination, she was confronted with her two previous statements (Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2) recorded by the investigating officer during investigation. In these statements, she clearly exonerated the accused and rather stated about her consensual relations with Ram Singh. In these statements, she also admitted that she had married with Ram Singh of her own free will. The change in version of the victim came around almost after one month of the incident when she was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 19.02.2014. In cross-examination, she admitted that her parents raised a protest before the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara for changing the version recorded in her previous statements (Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2). She gave the fresh statements as per the advice of her lawyer. In cross-examination, she admitted that her parents raised a protest before the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara for changing the version recorded in her previous statements (Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2). She gave the fresh statements as per the advice of her lawyer. It is for the first time i.e. after one month i.e. on 19.02.2014 that the allegation of kidnapping and rape was levelled by the victim against the accused persons in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Bijoliya which apparently was created under tutoring and legal advice. 5. In this background, the trial court discarded the statement of the victim holding her to be an unreliable witness and rightly so in the opinion of this Court. This Court is of the firm opinion that no views but that of acquittal of the accused was possible in the matter. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.05.2016 exfacie does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to grant leave to the State of Rajasthan to file an appeal there against. 6. Thus, the application for leave to appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected. Record be returned to the trial court.