JUDGMENT : – The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (in short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment dated 29-11-2016 passed by the Court of 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M. P.) in S.T. No. 263/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 7/8 and 11/12 of (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Act (in short “POCSO Act 2012”) and sections 452, 354, and 354-A(1)(i), (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, RI for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/- and further R.I. For 03 months with fine of 500/- with default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story, in brief is that : (i) Complainant and appellant both were neighbours and family friends. On 16-7-2014, at about 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. when, complainant and his wife had gone outside for purchasing grocery and his minor daughter prosecutrix aged about 16 years was all alone at home, appellant came there asking about her father. He caught hold of her hand saying she is very beautiful having good height. He thereafter, forcefully caught hold her, took her towards sofa and got her seated in his lap and sexually assaulted her. When, complainant and his wife returned back, prosecutrix narrated the incident to them. Thereafter, complainant went to appellant’s house and talked to him about the incident. Initially, appellant denied the incident, but later on he apologized due to which complainant did not report the matter to the police. After some time appellant again started chasing and staring complainant’s daughter and on 27-4-2015 at about 6:15 p.m., when complainant’s wife and daughter went for a walk in the garden, appellant’s wife, son and daughter came there and started hurling filthy abuses and pelted stones on them and threatened them of dire consequences. (ii) On the next day i.e. 28-4-2015, complainant along with his wife made a written complaint to the SHO, P.S. Rajendra Nagar Indore, on the basis of which on 29-4-2015, S. I. Anoop Yadav lodged FIR (Ex. (ii) On the next day i.e. 28-4-2015, complainant along with his wife made a written complaint to the SHO, P.S. Rajendra Nagar Indore, on the basis of which on 29-4-2015, S. I. Anoop Yadav lodged FIR (Ex. P-5) bearing Crime No. 463/2015 at P.S. Rajendra Nagar Indore against the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 354, 354-D, 294, 323, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012. During investigation he went to the spot, prepared spot map (Ex. P-1), obtained birth certificate (Ex. P-7) of the prosecutrix as proof of her age, recorded statements of prosecution witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the appellant’s son and daughter before the Juvenile Justice Board Indore, while against the appellant and his wife before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore who committed their case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Indore. 3. Learned trial Court considering the material prima facie available on record, framed the charges against the appellant under sections 452, 354, 354-A(1)(i), (ii) of Indian Penal Code and sections 7/8 and 11/12 of POCSO Act 2012, while discharged the appellant’s wife as allegations alleged against her were not triable by the sessions Court. The appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. In his statement recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant pleaded his false implication in the matter. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, recorded the findings that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 7/8 and 11/12 of POCSO Act and sections 452, 354, and 354-A(1)(i), (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, vide judgment dated 29-11-2016 convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5. Being aggrieved with the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 27-4-2015, a quarrel had taken place between appellant’s wife and complainant’s wife and daughter, due to which, false complaint was made against the appellant. Complainant as well as his wife and other independent prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Prosecutrix herself admitted in her cross-examination that nothing has happened with her. Complainant as well as his wife and other independent prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Prosecutrix herself admitted in her cross-examination that nothing has happened with her. She has not been declared hostile by the prosecution therefore, her statement made during cross-examination cannot be discarded. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Hafiz Khan s/o Mammukhan Muslim and ors. vs. State of M. P., 2000 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 347, Sukhram s/o Ramratan vs. State of M. P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 214 and Kunju Muhammed alias Khumani and another vs. State of Kerala, 2004 SCC (Cri) 1425. Under such circumstances, earned trial Court has committed legal error in holding the appellant guilty while appreciating the evidence available on record, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the charges framed against him. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgment was passed by the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Same is well reasoned establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 9. From the evidence produced on record, it is an admitted fact that complainant and appellant were neighbour and family friends. Complainant (PW-4) in his written complaint dated 28-4-2015 (Ex. P-3) has alleged that on 16-7-2014 in between 6:30-7:00 p.m. when his minor daughter- prosecutrix aged about 17 years was all alone in her house, appellant entered there and caught hold of her hand saying she is very beautiful having good height. He thereafter, forcefully caught hold of her with bad intention, took her towards sofa and got her seated in his lap and sexually assaulted her. He thereafter, forcefully caught hold of her with bad intention, took her towards sofa and got her seated in his lap and sexually assaulted her. It has also been alleged therein that since appellant was complainant’s family friend and he had apologized for his aforesaid act, complainant did not make any complaint against appellant at the that time, but after the incident, appellant again started chasing and staring complainant’s daughter and on 27-4-2015 at about 6:15 p.m., appellants’ wife, son and daughter assaulted the prosecutrix and her mother, then he made the said complaint. 10. As the case relating to the incident, which took place on 27-4-2015, is being tried separately by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and this case relates to the incident, which had taken place on 16-7-2014, therefore, it is clear that the FIR of this case was lodged after about 09 months of the incident. From the unchallenged statements of the complainant (PW-4), his wife (PW-3) and also from the birth certificate (Ex. P-7) of the prosecutrix, this is also established that prosecutrix’s date of birth is 16-7-1999 and on the date of incident, she was below 18 years of age and was minor at that time. 11. So for as the offences alleged to be committed by the appellant are concerned, prosecution has examined Prosecutrix (PW-5), her mother (PW-3) and father (PW-4), but none of them except prosecutrix (PW-5) have stated anything about the incident. Prosecutrix (PW-5) although in her statement recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code had stated that on the date of incident, appellant entered into her house, caught hold of her hand saying she is very beautiful having good height and thereafter, forcefully caught hold her, took her towards sofa and got her seated in his lap and sexually assaulted her. But in her examination in chief, she stated entirely different story and deposed that on the date of incident at about 6:30 p.m., when she was alone in her house, appellant came there and after asking about her studies, he started obscene talks. She in her cross-examination deposed that appellant was talking to her casually and nothing unhappening as stated earlier took place with her. She no where in her statement stated that appellant caught hold of her or touched her in any manner. 11A. She in her cross-examination deposed that appellant was talking to her casually and nothing unhappening as stated earlier took place with her. She no where in her statement stated that appellant caught hold of her or touched her in any manner. 11A. Prosecutrix (PW-5) has not been declared hostile by the prosecution, therefore, her statement cannot be discarded and benefit of inconsistency in her statements will go in favour of the appellant as held in Kunju Muhammed alias Khumani and another vs. State of Kerala (supra), Sukhram s/o Ramratan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), Hafiz Khan s/o Mammukhan Muslim and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). Prosecutrix’s mother (PW-3) and father (PW-4) both have completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Other prosecution witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. Admittedly, FIR was lodged after about 09 months, when a quarrel took place on 27-4-2015 between appellant’s wife and children and prosecutrix’s mother, therefore, only on the basis of prosecutrix’s inconsistent statements allegations alleged against the appellant cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as the defence taken by the appellant that the aforesaid complaint was made in retaliation of the quarrel occurred between appellant’s wife and his children and prosecutrix and her mother cannot be ruled out. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has committed error in holding the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under sections 7/8 and 11/12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sections 452, 354, and 354-A(1)(i), (ii) of Indian Penal Code. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment cannot sustain in the eyes of law and facts on record, and is liable to be set aside. Hence, conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order : (i) Criminal Appeal No. 1683/2016 filed by the appellant-Satyadev is allowed. Hence, conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order : (i) Criminal Appeal No. 1683/2016 filed by the appellant-Satyadev is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29-11-2016 passed in S.T. No. 263/2015 by which appellant has been convicted under sections 7/8 and 11/12 of POCSO Act and sections 452, 354, and 354-A(1)(i), (ii) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated in para 1 of the judgment is hereby set aside. (iii) Appellant be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. (iv) Fine amount (if any) deposited by the appellant be refunded to them. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record forthwith along with the copy of this judgment. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the concerned jail authorities for its speedy compliance and necessary action. Certified copy as per rules.