IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the definitions of sexual assault under the POCSO Act and rape under the IPC are closely aligned, and the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act places a significant burden on the accused to disprove the allegations.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Ahmednagar passed in Special (POCSO) Case No.199 of 2017 dtd. 18/12/2019, the accused has preferred this appeal under Sec. 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The parties will be referred to their original position.

3. The prosecution case in brief was that the victim was residing with her family in a chawl. The accused was also residing in one of the rooms in the same chawl. The victim was six and a half years old at the time of the incident. On 11/5/2017 at about 10.30 pm, the victim and her family had their dinner. Her mother, who was the first informant, was cleaning the utensils in the house. The victim told her that she was getting hot and wanted to sit out in the air. After finishing her work, she gave a call to the victim, but she did not respond. Therefore, she searched for the victim. However, she did not find her. When she was returning home, she noticed that the electric light in the room of the accused was on. Therefore, she peeped inside the room from the window. She found the victim in the said room. Therefore, she went inside the room and brought her out. She also noticed that her halfpant was blood-stained. She checked her and found bleeding on her anus. That time, the victim told her by weeping that the accused took her inside the room, locked the door from inside, switched off the light, threatened her to beat, pressed her mouth and inserted his penis into her anus. The first informant called her husband from his job. He came there and confirmed the facts from the victim. They slept over the night and lodged the report the next day, i.e., on 12/5/2017. On the report of the first informant, the Police Station Raver, District Ahmednagar, had registered the crime bearing No.88/2017 for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i), 377 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act').

4. The charges were framed against the accused. He denied the charges and claimed the trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The accused had a defence of false implication and total denial. His statements under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. He did not enter the witness box nor examine any witness in support of his defence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP for the State at length.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the shawl recovered from the room of the accused was not blood-stained, nor semen was found on it. The chemical analysis report does not support the prosecution of this fact. The first informant, in fact, was not the eyewitness. Considering the spot of the incident, the alleged crime was impossible in a chawl. Many tenants were residing there, but the incident was not immediately disclosed to anybody. The evidence of the victim and the first informant is contradictory. The victim did not specifically deposed that the accused inserted his penis into her anus. The F.I.R. was delayed. The medical evidence was insufficient to believe that there was unnatural intercourse. The statement of the victim under Sec. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not on record. Only her statement under Sec. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed. No semen was detected on the vaginal swab. There is no direct evidence of penetration of his private organ or any object. The neighbours were not examined. In his statement under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused answered question no.13 that the light of the room always remained on. All were sleeping in their rooms. The question nos.14, 15, and 16 have been specifically denied. The aggravated sexual assault has not been proven. The appellant is 35 years old. He has a family and small children. The appeal may be allowed since nothing has been proven against the accused. In case the judgment is not reversed, considering t