CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Bihar.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2021 and the order of sentence dated 25.08.2021, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-VI cum Special Judge, POCSO Nalanda at Biharsharif in POCSO/GR Case No. 118 of 2019 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 183 of 2019, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

3. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The mother of minor victim girl is the informant on whose written statement, the concerned Mahila P.S. Case No. 183/2019 came to be registered on 16.11.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act for an occurrence said to have taken place on 05.11.2019. The name of the victim is not being disclosed in the present judgment. According to the prosecution’s case, at about 8 PM on 05.11.2019, the victim had gone in a nearby field for easing herself. She returned complaining that the appellant had committed rape upon her in the field. The informant saw her undergarment and the pant soaked with blood. The appellant was arrested on 06.11.2019, as is evident from the records. The police completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet on 31.01.2020. It is the prosecution’s case that the victim’s blood soaked pant was seized on 06.11.2019. It is also the prosecutions case that the same was sent for forensic examination on 08.01.2020. We have not been able to notice from the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution as to where and in what manner the victim’s pant said to have been seized on 06.11.2019 was sealed, kept and preserved before the same were sent for forensic examination.

5. Be that as it may, the appellant stood charged for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the informant (PW-1) and the victim (PW-4) did not support the prosecution’s case and denied such occurrence having ever taken place. Further, the prosecution’s witnesses namely Manorama Devi (PW-2), Akhilesh Kumar (PW-3) and the brother of the victim (name not being mentioned) also did not support the prosecution’s case. PW- 2, 3 and 5 came to be declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution.

6. PW-6 is the Doctor who proved the report of the Medical Board constituted to examine the victim. In her deposition she testified that no internal or external injury was found on the person of the victim. PW-7, an Assistant Director, Biology in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna deposed that under the order issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Biharsharif on 08.01.2020, a sealed wooden box was received in the laboratory upon opening of which a panty was found which was marked ‘A’.

7. From deposition of PW7, it transpires that no semen was found on the said sample. It was however sent to the DNA Section of the FSL. The Assistant Director, DNA Section of Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna was examined at the trial as PW-9. He deposed at the trial that on 29.02.2020, FSL No. 46/200 Linked 40/200 Memo No. 15 dated 07.01.2020 and 28.02.2020 were handed over in the laboratory in connection with the case in question. Upon opening the articles he found two wooden boxes one received from the ‘Biology Section’ of the FSL which was sealed and upon opening the seal, a paper packet Marked ‘A’ ‘Biology Sect