JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.06.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C./ Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.128 of 2014, “State vs. Sudesh”, whereby, the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 376, 328, 506, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that a written information (Ext.Ka.1) was given by the informant (PW1) to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 10.04.2014 that she is a member of Scheduled Caste. She is a sweeper in Children Academy School. Her husband (PW3) is a sweeper in Bank of Baroda. They had gone to their work place at 9 a.m. on 29.03.2014. Her 16 year old daughter (PW2) was alone in the house. Her neighbor Sudesh, aged about 60 years, entered her house and raped her daughter after giving her intoxicating pills. He threatened her daughter that if she told this to anyone, he would kill her and fled from the spot. When she and her husband returned home at 04.00 p.m., their daughter was found lying unconscious on the bed. When she regained consciousness, she informed them about the incident. 3. In compliance with the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur dated 10.04.2014, FIR (Ext. Ka.3) was registered by Constable Dayal Arya (PW4) on the same day i.e. 10.04.2014 at 13.00 hrs. 4. Medical examination of the victim was conducted by Dr. Aradhana Dixit on 10.04.2014. The victim’s vaginal smears were taken by her for vaginal swab test. 5. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 18.04.2014. 6. PW6 Sub-Inspector Ramesh Singh Tanwar, the Investigating Officer, prepared the site plan of the incident place (Ext.Ka.11), arrested the accused, recorded the statements of the witnesses and took the accused’s blood for DNA test. He send the victim’s vaginal smears, the clothes, she was wearing at the time of the incident and the accused’s blood to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for examination. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.12) was filed by him. 7. Charges were framed against the respondent-accused. As the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. 8. The prosecution examined six witnesses. 9. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.12) was filed by him. 7. Charges were framed against the respondent-accused. As the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. 8. The prosecution examined six witnesses. 9. Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The respondent-accused denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. The respondent has stated that the father of the alleged victim had borrowed Rs.2.00 Lakh (Two Lakh) from him. He had given him a cheque in this regard, which was dishonoured. To save himself from his guilt, he has falsely implicated him. 10. In a case of acquittal, the State has to make out a strong case to interfere with the order of acquittal. Until and unless, there is some perversity or non-consideration of the material facts, it is not proper to interfere with the order of acquittal. 11. According to the written information of PW1, prosecutrix’s mother, on the basis of which the First Information Report was registered, on 29.03.2014, when she along with her husband (PW3) reached her house at 4:00 in the evening, they saw that the prosecutrix (PW2) was lying unconscious on the bed and when she regained consciousness, she informed them about the incident whereas the prosecutrix’s mother (PW1) has stated in her examination-in-chief that when she reached near her house with her husband, she saw that Sudesh was leaving her house and seeing them he quickly ran towards his house. The prosecutrix (PW2) has stated that her parents came to the house some time after the incident. The prosecutrix’s father (PW3) has stated that when he reached his house with his wife, he saw Sudesh leaving his house. 12. According to the written information (Ext. Ka.1), the respondent-accused entered the house of the informant and raped her daughter after giving her intoxicating pills. The said information was given on the basis of what the prosecutrix told whereas the prosecutrix (PW2) has deposed that Sudesh had given her Chhola Bhatura, due to which she had become intoxicated. 13. Dr. Aradhana Dixit (PW5), who conducted the medical examination of the victim on 10.04.2014, has stated that the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be absent. She had taken vaginal smears of the prosecutrix. 13. Dr. Aradhana Dixit (PW5), who conducted the medical examination of the victim on 10.04.2014, has stated that the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be absent. She had taken vaginal smears of the prosecutrix. It has been stated by the prosecutrix’s mother (PW1) that her daughter was wearing the same clothes for 10 consecutive days which she was wearing on the day of the incident but the said statement of the prosecutrix’s mother is not found credible. 14. The alleged incident is said to have occurred on 29.03.2014. The First Information report was lodged on 10.04.2014. There was total silence of nearly 12 days. The said delay has not been explained by the prosecution with any reliable evidence. Serious contradictions have been found in the statements of witnesses. The DNA report has not been filed by the prosecution. The prosecutrix’s mother (PW1) has accepted the fact that the cheque given to the respondent from her husband’s bank account had bounced on 04.04.2014. All these circumstances cast doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version. 15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal, recorded by the Trial Court. 16. As a result, the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Present Government Appeal is dismissed accordingly.