1. This application has been filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned 18th ASJ, Bhopal in S.T. No.129/2017, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354(A)(1) IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, in short is that on 20.10.2016 at about 6:30 pm, prosecutrix was alone at his home her parents went for working. During that time, accused came there and pressed her breast from behind and told that he loves her. When she made noise neighbor came there on account of which accused ran away. Report of the incident was lodged in Police Station.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned judgment, which is contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled principles of law. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of PW-1 Pooja Raikwar and PW-15 Dr. Rendra Barao, both of whom supported the prosecution case. The medical evidence, particularly the X-ray report, also indicated that the age of the prosecutrix was between 14 to 15 years at the relevant time. The said evidence, therefore, required proper consideration while appreciating the prosecution case. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are erroneous both on facts and in law and have resulted in an incorrect appreciation of the evidence on record. The impugned judgment, therefore, deserves to be set aside. The learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The evidence, when considered in its entirety, required a proper and comprehensive appreciation before arriving at the conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment. The learned Court below has also erred in not assigning due weightage to the FIR lodged by the complainant. The contents of the FIR and the circumstances in which it was lodged were relevant pieces of evidence and ought to have been considered along with the other evidence available on record. The findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Court below are contrary to the evidence and are therefore unsustainable in law. The impugned judgment is consequently liable to be set aside and appropriate relief may kindly be granted in favour of the appellant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/State and perused the record.

5. After considering the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657, wherein it has been held that when there are two views possible then the view shall be adopted in favour of accused. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Trial Court are correct. After going through the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is found that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to establish the prosecution story. Consequently, there is no material available on record to demonstrate that the incident had happened due to act of respondent.

6. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, this MCRC is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.