IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Omission in charge – Court is not to be restricted by technicalities as its main concern is to assess whether accused had fair trial and was aware of offence that he was being tried for.
(2) Appreciation of evidence – Every person has a different reaction to circumstances that they are faced with.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.—The minor victims, PW-1 aged about 16 years and PW-2 aged about 14 years, are said to have been the victims of sexual assault perpetrated on them by their biological father, aged about 44 years. The last incident having occurred on 25-08-2020. This allegation came to light on the lodging of the FIR, Exhibit 3, by PW-3 and PW-7, Team Members of the Childline Sub-Centre of the concerned area, on 26-08-2020. It was informed therein that the two minor girls were rescued by the relevant Childline Sub-Centre on information received at the Childline Helpline No.1098 at 11 a.m. the same day. Pursuant thereto, the matter came to be registered at the concerned Police Station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”), read with Sections 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, “POCSO Act”) against the Respondent.

2. The matter was investigated into by PW-14 the IO of the case, who submitted Charge-Sheet against the Respondent under the afore-mentioned legal provisions. Charge was framed by the Learned Trial Court against the Respondent under Sections 5(n)/6, 9(n)/10, 9(l)/10 of the POCSO Act, Sections 376(2)(f), 376(3), 354 and 506 of the IPC. The trial commenced as the Respondent pleaded “not guilty” to any of the charges. The Prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to prove its case. Thereafter, the Respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “Cr.P.C.”), where he claimed innocence and stated that he had not committed the alleged offences against his minor daughters. That, as he was a strict father, they had falsely implicated him. The Learned Trial Court on marshalling the entire evidence on record concluded that the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses did not support the Prosecution case and the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of doubt, consequently, he was acquitted of all the offences charged with.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assailing the Judgment of acquittal in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.26 of 2020, dated 16-11-2022, of the Court of the Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) at Namchi, urged that in fact the Prosecution had established that the offence on the minor victims were perpetrated since the year 2011. That, the acts of sexual assault continued against both the victims till 2018/2019 and both victims had complained before PW-8 their school Principal and PW-9 their school teacher, both the authorities failed to take steps in the matter. Consequently, having summoned up adequate courage they called the Childline Helpline number and reported the matter. That, the evidence of both the victims are consistent with regard to the sexual assault perpetrated on them by their father and hence, the Judgment of the Learned Trial Court be set aside and the Respondent be convicted for the offences charged with and sentenced as per law.

4. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and merely because it is a case under the POCSO Act, the Respondent cannot be submitted to the rigors of incarceration, sans proof of commission of offence. Hence, no interference is essential in the impugned Judgment.

5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties in extenso and carefully examined all evidence on record.

6. On the anvil of the submissions put forth, we are to consider whether the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the victims in its correct perspective, which thereby led to the acquittal of the Respondent.

7. The Learned Trial Court formulated inter alia the following points for determination;

a. that the accused, being the father of the victims, committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victims.

b. that the accused, being the father of the victims, sharing the same household, committed sexual assault upon the victims.

c.