JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Delay Condonation Application. 2. As per office report, there is a delay of 62 days in filing the Government Appeal as well as Leave to Appeal Application. Being satisfied with the reasons, so furnished, we allow the delay condonation application. The delay of 62 days, in filing the Government Appeal, is condoned. Special Leave to Appeal No. 261 of 2024 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Leave to Appeal Application. 4. This government appeal along with leave to appeal application has been preferred by the State/appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge/Juvenile Judge, Pithoragarh in Special Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2021 State Vs. A-Juvenile-In-Conflict with Law, whereby, the said court has acquitted the respondent Juvenile for the charge of offence, punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376(2) of IPC as well as Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, 2012 (hereinafter referred to The POCSO Act). 5. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the informant of the case lodged a report with Revenue Sub Inspector Digtoli, District Pithoragarh on 13.07.2021 with the averment that his grand-daughter has gone missing from 12.07.2021 at 10:00 a.m. from village Naini; age of his grand-daughter is 15 years; even after making plenty of efforts, his grand-daughter was not traceable. Hence, it was requested that report be lodged and his grand-daughter may be searched. 6. During the course of investigation, on the information of informant, Investigating Officer recovered the victim and prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of victim and her statements were recorded, even her medical examination was conducted. On transfer of investigation to regular Police, the Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the victim and that of other witnesses and also on the pointing out of victim, inspected place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. On completion of investigation, chalai report was submitted against respondent-Juvenile for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(i) of IPC as well as under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, Pithoragarh. Charges were accordingly, framed against the respondents. 7. On completion of investigation, chalai report was submitted against respondent-Juvenile for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(i) of IPC as well as under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, Pithoragarh. Charges were accordingly, framed against the respondents. 7. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, i.e. PW-1 victim, PW-2 grand-father of victim, PW-3 mother of victim, PW-4 father of victim, PW-5 Girish Chandra Pandey, PW-6 Dr. Divya Nath, PW-7 Digamber Singh, PW-8 Basanti Meher, PW-9 Head Constable 146 C.P. Chattar Singh and PW-10 S.I. Priyanka Moni, before the learned trial court to prove its case against the respondent/accused and documentary evidences were also produced. Subsequent thereto, statement of respondent-Juvenile was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he merely pleaded that I am innocent and falsely implicated in the crime. Further, he denied to give any evidence in defence. The court below at the end of trial, has acquitted the respondent-Juvenile, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, State has come up in appeal before this Court alongwith application, seeking leave to file appeal. 8. The points, on which, the trial court recorded the respondent-Juvenile, can be summarized, as follows: “(i) The trial court found contradiction in the statement of victim in paragraph nos.11 and 14 of the cross examination. (ii) The trial court also noticed that there was no veracity in the statement of victim given to the Medical Officer as in comparison to one given to the Magistrate, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which she stated to have been given under coercion to the police. Even in paragraph 18 of her cross-examination, the victim went on to state that even A-Juvenile-In-Conflict with Law, did not establish any physical relation with her. There was a friendship between her and that of the accused since they belong to same village. The victim further stated that she had gone to the house of her maternal grand-mother without informing her grand-father and in this misunderstanding, her grand-father lodged the missing report. (iii) PW-2 grand-father of victim has stated in Para 5 & 6 of cross examination that when victim was handed over to him, she did not utter any fact of establishing any physical relation by the accused with her. (iv) The court noted, the statement of victim given to PW-6, Medical Officer, who conducted medical examination that accused had established physical relations with her forcefully. (iv) The court noted, the statement of victim given to PW-6, Medical Officer, who conducted medical examination that accused had established physical relations with her forcefully. The trial court compared the aforesaid statement to that of the statement given by victim in the Court. In Para 16 of cross examination, the victim goes on to say this correct but says that while going for the medical examination, the Revenue Police (man) had threatened her and due to their threat only, she gave the aforesaid statement to the medical officer. Thus, no benefit could be given to the prosecution for this statement of victim. (v) The next statement, which was discussed by the trial court is of PW-8 Basanti Meher, in which she stated that the victim alongwith the accused came to her house and took her room on rent. On the next date, boy had gone somewhere leaving the girl there. After 3-4 days, Revenue Police people took the victim away with them and then she came to know that said boy and girl had run from their house. In this regard, the trial court came to the conclusion that before this witness, the identification of the Juvenile was not done. Hence, no benefit of said statement can be given to the prosecution. Moreover, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 are the formal witnesses from which no benefit could be extended to the prosecution.” 9. On the basis of the aforesaid points, the trial court came to the conclusion that the charges of offence, as framed against the respondent-Juvenile, could not be proved and accordingly, it recorded the findings of acquittal. 10. We are of the considered view that there is no iota of evidence to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial court. It is also in our mind that the respondent was also a minor at the time of alleged incident and his acquittal by trial court has further reinforced his innocence, which should not be trifled now lightly. Accordingly, we find no good ground to grant leave to the appellant. Consequently, leave to appeal application is dismissed. Government Appeal No. 161 of 2024 11. Since we have declined to grant leave to the State against the impugned judgment, present appeal, preferred by the State is also dismissed.