Ashutosh Kumar, J. – We have heard Shri D.K Sinha, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, who is the victim of this case, Mr. Ansul the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2, who is alleged to have subjected the victim to sexual intercourse and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the State.

2. The Respondent No. 2 was charged for kidnapping and raping the victim who shall henceforth be referred to as ‘X’.

3. Vide Judgment dated 09.07.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Court POCSO, Rohtas at Sasaram, the Respondent No. 2 has been acquitted on account of different statements made by the victim, her father and her own uncle. Apart from this, the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the version of the victim on account of certain intrinsic anomalies appearing in her statement before the Trial Court.

4. According to the prosecution case, the victim was staying in the house of Respondent No. 2 with the consent of her parents. She was prosecuting her studies for acquiring computer knowledge while residing with the Respondent No. 2 and his wife. Respondent No. 2. is the Maternal uncle (Mausa) of the victim. Evidence suggests that Respondent No. 2 was posted at Uttar Pradesh when the occurrence took place. The F.I.R was lodged by the own aunt of the victim, alleging that the victim had left the house for going to computer center on 25.02.2015 at about 8 ‘O’ Clock in the morning but did not come back till late in the night. A search was made for her but to no avail. The aunt who has been examined as P.W-3 waited for some time before lodging the subject F.I.R against unknown for offences under Section 363 and 365 of the I.P.C.

5. During the course of investigation, the victim appears to have come back home and had made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C alleging that on 25.02.2015, she had met the Respondent No. 2 at the bus-depot, who insisted upon her to accompany him to Mundeshwari temple. She was not taken to Mundeshwari temple; rather she was taken to a desolate place which appeared to be the end of a village where there was no habitation. The house in which the victim was kept by the Respondent No. 2 was very inadequately furnished. She alleges that she was kept in confinement in the afore-noted room of the house in question where nobody came except Respondent No. 2, for about 20 to 25 days and that but for the last day when she was brought to a desolate place again for her to go back home, every day she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Before the learned Magistrate who recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she expressed her desire of going back to her parents.

6. This statement was given on 28.03.2015. However, before that, the father of the victim who would be referred to in the case as ‘Y’ henceforth, and who has been examined as P.W-6, went to the police station on 17.03.2015, i.e. much before the victim had come back home and had given a written report alleging that considering Respondent No. 2 and his wife to be close relatives, he had permitted his daughter to reside with them for the purposes of prosecuting her studies. However, later when he came to village Khaira to know about his daughter, neither respondent no. 2 nor his wife gave any plausible explanation about the absence of her daughter at home. He, therefore, suspected that perhaps the victim has been taken to some unknown destination by Respondent No. 2, either for the purposes of committing sexual intercourse with her or to sell her off to some sex-selling agency. He also went to the extent of alleging that the father of Respondent No. 2 and his wife admitted before him that Respondent No. 2 and the victim had gone out and that shortly they will come back. Any hue and cry if made by P.W-6 would only impinge on the family prestige.

7. On such report, no separate case was registered against respondent no. 2 or for that matter against the informant of this case (P.W-3), who is also alleged to have a