The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in POCSO cases, where inconsistencies in evidence can invalidate the presumption of guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

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 the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2022 and order of sentence dated 02.12.2022 passed by learned Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act)-cum-7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in POCSO Case No.3935 of 2018 arising out of Kahalgaon P.S. Case No.499 of 2018, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellant/convict for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence is awarded for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, as available through written information of informant/PW-1, which is the basis of FIR is that on 31.07.2018 at about 11.00 A.M., her neighbour, namely, Doman Mahto (appellant/convict), son of late Shankar Mahto came to her house and took away her daughter (victim)/PW-2 on pretext of providing biscuit. Whereafter, at about 12 O’ clock, her minor daughter returned crying and said that appellant/convict made an attempt to commit wrong with her, from where she anyhow managed to escape. The appellant/convict was alleged to be in drunken condition.

3. With aforesaid factual allegation, informant/PW-1 requested to the S.H.O., Kahalgaon Police Station for taking appropriate legal action against the appellant/convict, whom she handed over to police after apprehending him with the help of others.

4. On the basis of aforesaid information of informant/PW-1, the police registered Kahalgaon P.S. Case No.499 of 2018 dated 31.07.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 76 , 511 of the IPC, Sections 3 /4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3 7(c) of the BIHAR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE AMENDMENT ACT , 2016, arraying accused/appellant, Doman Mahto as an accused.

5. After completion of investigation and on the basis of materials collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer of this case (PW-4) submitted charge- sheet No.227 of 2018 dated 24.09.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 511 of the IPC, Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned trial court after supplying the police papers under Section 207 of the Code framed charges under Sections 376 , 511 of the IPC and under Section ¾ of the POCSO Act and also under Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 on 11.12.2020, later on, charges were altered and framed under Section 5 /6 of the POCSO Act vide order dated 03.01.2022 through order-sheet dated 24.11.2022, the date on which the judgment was pronounced, which were explained to the appellant/convict to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

(i) PW-1 Mother of the victim (X);

(ii) PW-2 the victim (X-1);

(iii) PW-3 Dr. Pusp Sudha, who has examined the victim and;

(iv) PW-4 Mr. Sugriv Singh, who is Investigating Officer of this case.

7. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon following exhibits/documentary evidences, which are:-

8. On the basis of evid