The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Binod Kumar for the informant. The State has been represented by Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the POCSO Act vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai in POCSO Case No. 09 of 2022. By order dated 22.07.2023, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer SI for three months under Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence has been awarded to the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC.

3. The victim, a 16 year old girl, is alleged to have been raped by the appellant in the night of 12.04.2022. She had lodged a written report on 13.04.2022 alleging that at about 9:15 PM, when she had gone to the washroom behind the house of her maternal grandmother, with whom she had been residing for a long time, the appellant, a 22 year old man came; gagged her; disrobed her and then committed rape on her. When she did not get back home for some time, her grandmother came out of the house looking for her. She saw that the appellant had mounted himself on her. The grandmother shouted which awakened other family members. By that time, the appellant had run away. The victim has further stated that she went in the night to the Police Station and informed about the occurrence. The written report, however, is dated 13.04.2022 on the basis of which, the subject FIR, viz., Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 83 of 2022 dated 13.04.2022 was registered for investigation against the appellant. The Police submitted charge-sheet against him whereupon he was put on trial.

4. The Trial Court after having heard six witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and on going through the records of the case, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

5. Mr. Thakur has assailed the judgment and order of conviction on several counts but primarily on the ground of the victim being a major and the accusation against the appellant being motivated and false and brought up by the victim because of the existing land dispute between the appellant and the grandmother of the victim. He has further argued that looking at the medical report as also the deposition of the witnesses, it would be very evident that a completely false case was lodged by the victim. By no stretch of imagination can the victim be called a sterling witness and her statements cannot be believed without serious caveats.

6. As opposed to the aforenoted contention, Mr. Binod Kumar, learned Advocate for the informant has submitted that the victim was 14 years of age according to the school certificate which forms part of the exhibited documents on behalf of the prosecution and the victim has supported the prosecution case in totality. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of a victim of sexual crime as also of other witnesses. He further submits that no person can claim to have an eidetic memory and some lapses ought not to be magnified for discarding the prosecution case. He has further argued that this Court shall not treat the victim as an accomplice and shall look at the case of the prosecution in correct perspective.

7. Similar arguments have been advanced by Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

8. We have given anxious consideration to the facts of this case and the materials brought on record on behalf of the prosecution.

9. We have found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. There have been many a lapses on behalf of the prosecution which go to the root of the matter and we have also not found the victim to be making correct statement during the Trial.

10. It w