The conviction of the appellant was quashed due to insufficient and inconsistent evidence, demonstrating the necessity for reliable testimonies in criminal cases, especially under sexual offence laws.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. We had issued notice to the informant/victim which has been validly served upon her and she has entered appearance through her advocate but no one has appeared on her behalf to oppose the present appeal.

3. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 04.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 07.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jamui (hereinafter called ‘the learned trial court’) in POCSO Case No. 37 of 2020 (arising out of Barhat P.S. Case No. 85/2020).

4. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to hold the appellant guilty of the charges under Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (in short ‘POCSO’) Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The trial court held that no cogent evidence has come against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Hence, he has been acquitted for the said charge. The appellant has then ordered to undergo a sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict-appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 4 months. The fine, so realised, shall be given to the victim under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 42 of the POCSO Act has been invoked and the learned trial court has said that no sentence is awarded to the convict for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as the sentence prescribed under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act is greater in degree.

Prosecution Case

5. The prosecution is based on a written application dated 29.06.2020 submitted by the prosecutrix to the officer in- charge of Barhat police station in the district of Jamui. In the said written application, the prosecutrix has alleged that she being resident of village Badrot, P.S.-Laxmipur, District- Jamui had visited the village of her ‘mousi’ in Kajiyajor, P.S.- Barhat, District- Jamui on 27.06.2020. On the same day, in the evening at about 3:00 ‘O’ clock, she had gone to defecate outside the house of her ‘mousi’, near the bank of a river where this appellant came by applying force, he committed rape on her and then left her in her conditions. The prosecutrix further alleged that somehow she reached the house of her ‘mousi’ and told about the occurrence to all. On the basis of the written application dated 29.06.2020, a First Information Report giving rise to Barhat P.S. Case No. 85/2020 was registered under Section 376 of ‘IPC’ and Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. A formal FIR has been drawn on 29.06.2020 at 16:50 hours.

6. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the accused-appellant on 26.08.2020, on which cognizance was taken by the Court on 21.09.2020. Thereafter, police papers were supplied to the accused.

7. The charges were explained to the accused- appellant which he denied and claimed to be tried whereafter charges were framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of ‘IPC’ and also under Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act vide order dated 06.02.2021.

8. To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited some documen