The prosecution must establish the foundational aspects of a sexual assault case with credible evidence; inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. The present matter was taken on board for considering the prayer of bail and suspension of sentence of above named accused/appellant, namely, Hare Ram Ram @ Hareram Kumar during pendency of appeal under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) as raised through memo of appeal itself, which preferred under Sections 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., for which a submission was advanced as not to pressed for the present.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands dismissed as not pressed.

4. At this point, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant namely, Hare Ram Ram @ Hareram Kumar is in custody for more than one year and six months against sentence of five years, therefore this appeal be heard finally in view of Section 374(4) of the Cr.P.C.

5. Learned APP for State while opposing the prayer of bail and suspension of sentence submitted that on earlier occasion the bail prayer of appellant was also dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 27.09.2023 of this Court, whereas he didn’t objected the submission of learned counsel of appellant regarding final hearing of this matter.

6. Accordingly, this matter was taken up for hearing on board.

7. The above-mentioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants/convicts under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 17.06.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI cum Special Judge POCSO, Bhojpur, in POCSO Case No. 36 of 2019 (arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 103 of 2019), whereby the concerned trial court has convicted the appellant/convict for the offences punishable under Sections 354 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment, learned trial court further ordered appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sole appellant has been further awarded five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 10 of the POCSO Act alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- where in default of payment of fine the appellant is further ordered to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences shall ordered to run concurrently.

8. The brief case of prosecution as per written information of the informant (PW-1) is that on the day of occurrence i.e., 11.06.2019 at about 2.00 P.M. her four years old daughter was playing at her door, the accused/appellant namely, Hare Ram Ram, who is dewar of the informant (victim’s mother) came there and took the victim in his lap and carried away her to his cowshed, for which she did not raised doubt as it was usual. Thereafter, she went on work. It is further alleged that after 10 minutes when the victim did not return the informant/PW-1 found victim weeping loudly on asking she told that the accused/appellant took her inside Cowshed thereafter put her on “Chowki”, committed wrong work upon her. She further alleged that in presence of several persons, when pant of victim was opened, white color liquid like substance was found on her body. When the informant went to the house of appellant he was not present there.

9. On the basis of afore