IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption under the POCSO Act is rebuttable and requires foundational facts to be established beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 30.07.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Wardha, whereby the learned Judge held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act”). He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC. The accused, though convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence has been awarded.

02] BACKGROUND FACTS:

The victim girl, aged about 16 years old on the date of the incident, is the informant. The report of the incident was lodged by the informant on 20th June, 2016 at Ashti Police Station, District Wardha. The victim has stated that on 20th June, 2016, at 10.00 a.m., her mother, brother, and sister had gone out for labour work. The victim was alone in the house. The victim and one old lady, who is called grandmother by the victim by name Shakunabai, a neighbour of the victim, were sitting in the house. After some time, she started her household work. It is stated that when she was pouring the water from the pot and bucket into the water tank at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m., the accused came from her behind. He caught hold her hand. Shakunabai was sitting on the cot. The accused drove Shakunabai out of the house. He was under the influence of liquor. The accused pulled her into the house. The accused closed the doors of the house. He laid her on the ground. The accused removed his pant and then removed her knickers and Salvar. The accused gagged her mouth with his hand and committed sexual intercourse with her. The accused committed this act for one hour. She kicked the accused and then the accused released her. The accused put on his cloths and ran away from the backside door. It is stated that thereafter she put on her cloths and came out of the house. It is stated that since Shakunabai had raised alarm, the people from the locality had gathered in front of the house. The victim went to the house of her neighbor, Jijabai, who is the daughter of Shakunabai, and narrated the entire incident to her. The mother of the victim came back from work at 5.00 p.m. She narrated the incident to her mother. After some time, her elder sister Laxmi and her brother came back. She narrated the incident to them as well. The victim, her sister, and her brother went to Ashti Police Station and reported the matter to the police. On the basis of this report, a Crime bearing No.0203/2016 was registered against the accused for the above offences.

03] Initial investigation was carried out by PW-4 (P.I.) Vishnu Yadaorao Karale. P.I. Karale visited the spot of the incident. He drew the spot panchanama. He seized the cloths of the victim and the samples from the spot. The accused was arrested on the next day. He was sent for medical examination. His cloths were seized. The statement of the victim was recorded by the Child Welfare Committed as well as by the learned Magistrate. Further investigation was carried out by PW-9. He collected the documents with regard to the birth date of the victim. He forwarded the victim for medical examination on 11th July, 2016. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused.

04] Learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The defence of the accused is of false implication on account of a dispute between him and the family of the victim. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove the guilt of t