The court ruled that contradictions in the victim's testimony rendered the prosecution's case unreliable, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of sentence both dated 11.01.2016 whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. In case of default to pay the fine he has been directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months under each Section.

Prosecution case.

2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report of the victim is that she was 15 years of age and in the night of 7/8th of August, 2014 she was sleeping alone on roof of her house. At 1:00 O’clock in the night, all of a sudden, appellant Pramod Chaudhary living in the neighbouring house came to her and sat beside her and wanted to untie the string of her payjama with ill intent. She got awake and raised hulla and the appellant fled away from the roof.

Factual background.

3. On the basis of the written report, formal F.I.R. was lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of I.P.C. and Sections 4,5 and 6 of POCSO Act on 08.08.2014 at 05:30 O’clock against the sole accused Pramod Chaudhary. After investigation, charge sheet bearing no. 237 of 2014 dated 31.08.2014 was submitted against the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The charges were framed against the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and the same were read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the trial commenced.

4. During trial, altogether five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-1 is cousin of the victim; P.W.-2 is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the victim; P.W.-3 is mother of the victim; P.W.-4 is victim herself and P.W.-5 is Mahanand Jha, I.O. of the case.

5. The prosecution also brought on record Ext.1-(signature of the victim/informant on the written report).

Statement under Section 313 Cr.PC

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC confronting him with incriminating circumstances which came in the prosecution evidence, so as to afford him opportunity to explain those circumstances. During this examination, he admitted that he had heard the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him. But he did not explain any circumstance, though he claimed that the prosecution evidence is false and he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

7. The appellant has also examined one witness in his defence - D.W.-1 (Sudhir Prasad ).

Findings of the Trial Court.

8. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the submissions of the parties, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty and sentenced accordingly.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State.

Submissions of the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law or on facts. Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

11. He further submits that even going by the prosecution case and the whole evidence on record, no case is made out under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The alleged actus reus at most constitute only preparation for rape which is not punishable and even going by the definition of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, the