IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Justice is not intended to be imparted to one party of lis only.
(2) Attempts to expedite process of trial should not be at expense of basic elements of fairness and opportunity to Accused on which postulates entire criminal administration of justice is founded.

JUDGMENT

By The Court:—

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No. 03, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Sessions Case No. 28/2021 whereby the appellant was held guilty for commission of offence under Sections 5(m)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he was sentenced to suffer 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case as per the FIR are that a girl aged of nine years left her house to get a beedi for her grandfather from a shop in the village at around 5 p.m. on 26.09.2021. When the girl was returning with the beedi and sweets, the accused-appellant lured her, took her to a discreet place and committed the offence of rape upon her. He had tied her hands and her mouth and he had even tried to strangle her. After thinking that she had died, the accused-appellant left from the scene. The villagers started looking for her when the girl did not return for a long period of time and found her lying unconscious. She was in a disconcerted state and she was bleeding from her private parts. She was taken to hospital immediately where she told the whole story to her father. Thereafter, her father lodged a report with the police. Upon filing of the FIR, investigation commenced.

3. As part of their usual investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses, inspected the crime scene, prepared the site plan, procured the documents pertaining to the age of the victim, recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 CrPC and got her medically examined. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the accused-appellant was detained and interrogated. An interrogation note was prepared and post-interrogation, the offences under Section 376 AB of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were found proved against the appellant and he was arrested. The arrestee was also subjected to medical examination and as per the disclosure made by him under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, the attested map of the crime scene was prepared. After conducting complete investigation and looking at the facts and circumstances as available on record, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Section 376 AB of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 on 27.09.2021.

4. Thereafter, vide the order dated 28.09.2021, cognizance was taken by the trial court and charges were framed against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act and in alternate Section 376AB of IPC.

5. As many as 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 33 documents were tendered into evidence. Thereafter, when the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of CrPC, he refuted the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses and claimed them to be untrue except the part of testimony of PW-14 the prosecutrix wherein he accepted the fact that he was intoxicated. Four documents were adduced in favour of the accused in his defence.

6. Subsequently, after hearing learned counsel for the accused and the public prosecutor and examining the evidence produced before the court, the learned trial court convicted the accused-respondent under Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer a sentence of twenty years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below needs to be set as