The prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborative medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging impugned the judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2023 and order of sentence dated 04.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI- cum Special Judge, POCSO, Madhubani in POCSO G.R. Case No. 44 of 2021 (arising out of Rajnagar Police Station Case No. 176 of 2021) whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellant/convict for the offences punishable under Section 376, 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO (in short Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act (read with 376 of the IPC as per provision of Section 42 of the POCSO Act). Further the convicts sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. Both the sentence run concurrently.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the informant/victim aged about 16 years was unwell and was not getting cured by the Doctor and that on night of 12.06.2021-13.06.2021 her aunt and her brother took her to the shop of the accused/appellant who use to treat people through "Jharphuk". It is further alleged that the accused was in the braided state and he took victim behind the shop in the name of treatment and there tied her hands and leg and stuffed cloth in victim’s mouth and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that the accused threatened the victim that if she would disclose incidence to anyone she will be killed. After arriving home, victim informed her family members about the incident, thereafter, they went to the accused to lodge their complaint, where accused threatened them to kill through his "Mantras". It is further stated that the accused was assaulted by the local people and subsequently he was arrested by the Police.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written application the police registered a case, as Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 176 of 202 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of the IPC and under Sections 4 of the POCSO Act, where after the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. They are:-

6. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon following documents/exhibits in order to prove the charges:-

7. On the basis of evidences, as surfaced during the trial, the appellant/convict was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he denied all the evidences as surfaced against him and claimed his complete innocence and false implication.

8. Three defence witnesses were also examined by appellant/convict during the trial in defence but no document was exhibited in support. Defence witnesses are:-