Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) 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.;