The court acquitted the appellant due to doubts regarding the victim's age and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, emphasizing the principle of benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

Heard Mr. Kumar Sunil learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP for the State.

2. The sole appellant/Chedi Bind @ Chhedi Vind has been convicted for the offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC vide judgment dated 12.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st -cum-Special Judge, Kaimur (Bhabua) in connection with Sessions Trial Registration No. 32 of 2017 – POCSO Case No. 32/2017, arising out of Bhabua Mahila P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017. By order dated 15.10.2018 he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 15000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC.

3. The victim is alleged to have been raped by the appellant in the night intervening between 2nd-3rd of September, 2017.

4. A typed written report was filed by the victim on the basis of which Bhabua (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017 was registered for investigation against the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

5. In the written report, the victim has disclosed her age to be 15 years. She has alleged that her parents were away in connection with treatment of her younger brother. However, her father had left behind his mobile telephone so that in any eventuality, the victim could be contacted. At about 12.45 in the night of 02.09.2017, a call was received on the mobile telephone of her father. At that time, she was sleeping in her house along with her very old maternal grand-mother and her younger siblings. When she could not hear the voice clearly on the mobile telephone, she walked up to the door of her house so that the voice becomes clear. However, in the meantime, the appellant, a neighbour and a co-villager, came , gagged her and took to a desolate boring chamber near her house and committed rape on her. While the appellant was at the act, a co-villager Narendra Bind (P.W. 3) also arrived, who abused the appellant and also tried to apprehend him. However, the appellant ran away. Many persons of the village saw the appellant running away from the P.O.

6. When her father was informed on telephone at Varanasi, where he had gone for treatment of the brother of the victim, he came back home and was told that the appellant had raped the victim.

7. It has also been alleged in the written report that the family of the appellant had been threatening the victim of dire consequences. She had come to the Mahila Police Station on 03.09.2017 to lodge the written report.

8. The police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellant whereafter he was put on trial.

9. The Trial Court after having examined eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

10. Mr. Kumar Sunil, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that an absolutely false case has been lodged against him. The falsity of the case would appear from the fact that the victim is not a minor but aged about 18-20 years. That apart, it has been argued that the medical evidence is completely in dissonance with the ocular testimony. He has further submitted that Narendra Bind (P.W. 3) about whom it has been stated by the victim that he is a co-villager and he had seen the occurrence is non else but the maternal uncle of the victim, which relationship has been completely hidden by the other witnesses and even the prosecutrix.

11. It was not inadvertent but deliberate.

12. There appears to be a possibility, it has been argued, that the victim and the appellant were having consensual sex, which was witnessed by P.W. 3 and therefore, this false case has been lodged. The appellant after his arrest was not subjected to any medical examination. No forensic examination to affirm the factum of rape was ever held. Lastly, it has been submitted that the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim also is absolutely different from what she has alleged in the