The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborative medical evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.

Heard Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have issued notice to respondent no.2 but in spite of valid service of notice, respondent no.2 has chosen not to appear in this case.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, Abla Yadav @ Ablay Yadav, against the judgment of conviction dated 5^th December, 2022 and order of sentence dated 7^th December, 2022 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 127/2021 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2015 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- VI^th -cum- Spl. Judge, POCSO Act, Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 D of the Indian Penal Code ( in short ‘IPC’) and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and in the light of the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has been punished only for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for which he has been sentenced to undergo 20 (twenty) years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year additionally.

Prosecution story:-

3. The substance of the prosecution story is as follows:-

The victim herself lodged the FIR and according to prosecution story narrated by her in her written FIR, on 12.03.2015 she went to Mohanpur Bahiyar from her village along with eight girls to cut the grass. All of them were cutting the grass then at about 2:00 P.M., two boys namely, Abla Yadav @ Ablay Yadav (appellant) and Gugo Yadav who are her neighbours, came and started talking irrelevant facts then the other girls who were seven in number, fled away from that place and thereafter, both the accused took her to a nearby maize filed and tied her mouth and thereafter, they opened her salwar and raped her one by one and after that they fled away. The informant further alleged that at the time of commission of the alleged occurrence, there was no one. Thereafter, she returned back to her home. She further revealed that when she returned back to her home, her father and mother were not there as they had gone out for earning and they came back at night. Then she informed them about the occurrence and as there was late night at that time, they could not go to the police station on that day and the next day in the morning she went to the police station with her mother and brother who filed her written application.

4. The informant, the victim, herself lodged the FIR as stated above by filing her written application (Exhibit-P1/PW-1) on that basis the formal FIR bearing Bhagalpur Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2015 was registered under Section 376D of IPC and also, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the afore-mentioned accused persons, which set the criminal law in motion.

5. During the course of investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and the statements of other witnesses, were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer and thereafter, chargesheet was submitted after completing other part of the investigation against the appellant and co-accused, Gugo Yadav for the offence under Section 376 read with section 34 of IPC.

6. As the co-accused did not appear before the trial court, so, his case was separated after declaring him an absconder and the trial of the appellant ran separately.

7. The appe