JUDGMENT & ORDER : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The instant application for leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan No. 289/2017 and the Cr. Appeal No. 2/2017 filed by complainant are directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Chittorgarh in Session Case No. 61/2015 whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent Dhumrpal Singh from the charges under Sections 8 read with Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012 in alternate 354A(1)(i) IPC and 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. I have appreciated arguments advanced by Mr. Zafar Khan learned counsel representing the complainant, Mr. Upadhyay, learned P.P as well as Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent accused. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. 3. Facts in brief are that the complainant Banshilal lodged a written report with the S.H.O P.S Nimbahera on 29.1.2015 alleging interalia that on 26.1.2015 his minor daughters Sushri ‘S’ and Sushri ‘K’ had gone to offer prayers in the Bheruji temple and while returning to their home, at about 7.30 P.M, the accused respondent stopped them near the Government School and caught hold of Sushri ‘S’ and threatened that if she shouted she would be killed. She was dragged towards the parapet of a well and there, the accused outraged the modesty of the girl and also tried to disrobe her. She raised a hue and cry on which Jagannath and Pyarji came around and saved her from the clutches of the accused. The accused hurled caste based abuses at Jagannath and Pyarji. But on seeing more people coming, he ran away. On the basis of this report, investigation was commenced and charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the accused respondent for the offences mentioned above. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, upon being examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution allegations but did not choose any witness in defence. The trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record held that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence and accordingly discarded the same and acquitted the accused from the charges. 4. The accused, upon being examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution allegations but did not choose any witness in defence. The trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record held that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence and accordingly discarded the same and acquitted the accused from the charges. 4. Having appreciating the arguments advanced by learned counsel representing the respective parties and after going through the impugned judgment as well as the original record, this Court is in firm agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court for acquitting the respondents from the charges. The complaint was lodged after a delay of 3 days with no explanation forthcoming for the same. The star prosecution witness Sushri ‘K’ being the cousin sister of the victim Sushri ‘S’ did not allege in her evidence that the respondent outraged the modesty of the victim. She also admitted that the surroundings had become pitch dark and nobody could see who had caught hold of the girl. The witness Jagannath, being the father of the eye-witness Sushri ‘K’ categorically admitted in his cross examination that when the girl approached him she did not tell him the name of the accused. 5. In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in a perfectly well judged apropos manner for recording acquittal of the respondent. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2016 does not ex-facie suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or shortcoming so as to grant leave to appeal to the State against the impugned judgment and for admitting the appeal preferred by the complainant. 6. Thus, the application for leave to appeal as well as the appeal are dismissed as being devoid of merit. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.