IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act requires a solid evidentiary foundation, which was not established in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

G. A. Sanap, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellant/accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021. The learned Special Judge has held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the I.P.C.”) and under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Background facts:-

The First Information Report was registered on the report of the informant (PW-1). Awadta Ramteke (PW-1) is the maternal aunt of the victim. In the report, the informant has stated that at the relevant time the accused was working as a Malaria worker. On 17.11.2014, he along with other health workers had come to village Kitali. In the village, there was death of one person due to dengue. The team of heath workers was deputed to carry out the survey and treat the patients. The accused and other health workers visited the house of the victim on 17.11.2014. The victim was examined by the accused. It is alleged that tablets were given to treat her fever. The victim went inside her house to take tablets. It is stated that the accused went inside the house on the pretext of examining the victim and when the victim was lying on the cot, he caressed his hand on her private part as well as inserted his finger in her private part. He kissed her. The victim narrated the incident to her parents in the evening.

3. As far as the informant is concerned, it was stated in the report that on 19.11.2014 her sister-in-law Sadhna Ramteke told her about the occurrence of the incident. She therefore, made an inquiry with the victim and at that time the victim narrated the incident to her. She has further stated that the victim told her that on the date of the incident she had narrated the incident to Payal Katkar. She lodged the report on 24.11.2014. On the basis of report, the crime bearing No.121/2014 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(b)(i)(l) of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 and 10 of the POCSO Act and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989.

4. Raju Bhujbal (PW-15) conducted the investigation. The victim was forwarded to the hospital for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Neha Mahajan (PW-9). PW-15 recorded the statements of the witnesses. According to PW-15, the investigation revealed the commission of the offences by the accused and therefore, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

5. Learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. It is the defence of the accused that PW-1 was working as a health worker on behalf of an NGO at village Kitali. She would give medicines and tablets to the villagers being a health worker. At that time, one person in Kitali had died due to dengue. He and his team had gone and done survey in the village. They questioned the informant (PW-1) as to why she had not informed them about the death. She was informed that the dengue patient died due to her mistake and she was giving medicines without authority. She was told by the accused that he would make a complaint against her. It is stated that therefore, the false report was lodged by PW-1 against him. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt against the accused examined 15 witnesses. Learned Special Judge, on consideration of the evidence, found the accused guilty of the charge and sentenced him as above. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the appellant has come before this Court in appeal.

6. I have heard Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. Mukta Kavimandan, learned APP for the State. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that