The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence inspiring confidence, the presumption of innocence, and the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Jawalkar, J. - Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. S.R. Rivankar for the appellant and the learned Counsel, Mr. Vibhav R. Amonkar for the respondent.

2. The present Appeal is preferred by the State against the order of acquittal vide impugned judgment dated 28.01.2019 by the Children's Court, Panaji, Goa in Special Case No. 03/2017.

3. The present Appeal is preferred mainly on the ground that the learned Children's Court has erred in disbelieving the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the victim, whose evidence is not shaken in cross examination. It is contended that being a child victim, his testimony becomes material, unless it is shown that he is either tutored or that he has deposed falsely. It is also submitted that the learned Children's Court has disbelieved the testimony of PW-2, complainant (mother of the victim), mainly on the ground that she was doing the business of prostitution. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that PW-3 and PW-4, who are the NGOs have taken up the issue upon information given by the victim on 11.11.2016. Upon which, the complaint was filed by the mother. It is submitted that the Children's Court wrongly arrived at a conclusion that there was delay in lodging the complaint. In fact, the delay in lodging the same was well explained. It is submitted that the learned Children's Court gave undue credence to the defence witnesses. It is submitted that the learned Children's Court has not properly appreciated the medical evidence on record.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the citation State of M.P. Vs. Dayal Sahu, (2005) 8 SCC 122 , in support of his contention that non-examination of the Doctor and non-production of Doctor's report is not fatal to the prosecution case, if the statement of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspires confidence. Though, in the present matter, Doctor has not been examined on injury to the victim, the certificate is on record, which supports the deposition of PW-1. He further relied on State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Private Limited, (2011) 11 SCC 524 .

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Amonkar submitted that there is no error whatsoever or illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Children's Court. It is submitted that it has come on record that the relation between the family of the accused and the family of PW-1/PW-2 was not good. It is submitted that it is also a fact on record that PW-2 was doing the business of prostitution and on that count there was always dispute between the father of the accused and PW-2 (mother of the victim). It is submitted that the accused examined defence witnesses, whose evidence is on par with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that their evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that the witnesses are related to the accused or interested witnesses.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 in support of his contention that the evidence of defence witnesses is equally important and it cannot be discarded labeling them as interested witnesses and they are to be treated at par with prosecution witnesses. He also relied on Girish Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand,2019 SCCOnlineSC 897 on scope of Appeals against acquittal.

7. The rival contentions of the parties fall for our consideration and determination.

8. The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. PW2, is the complainant (mother of the victim), who lodged the complaint on 11.11.2016 i.e. the day when she received information from one Julian and Anna that her child was raped by the accused. The alleged assault is of 30.10.2016. After receiving information, she went to the hospital along with Julian and Anna. The Doctor removed the clothes of the victim and did the check up. She further deposed that the victim also informed that when he was playing at 4 p.m. he was called by Raj, who is the bro