The court emphasized that significant inconsistencies in victim statements, delay in FIR, and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant in a sexual assault case.

JUDGMENT :

SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 2, she has chosen not to enter appearance to contest the appeal. In course of hearing, we have also perused the trial court records.

2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 30.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI-cum- Spl. Judge, POCSO Act, Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in T.R. No.111 of 2024 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 40 of 2021.

3. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 363, 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). By the order of sentence, he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Prosecution Case

4. The prosecution case is based on a written information submitted by the mother of the victim (PW-2) on 14.06.2021 in Mahila Police Station, Samastipur. She has stated in her written information that she is a resident of village-Simri, Ward No.11 under Vidyapati Nagar Police Station in the District of Samastipur. On 19.05.2021 at about 3.45 AM, she had gone to ease out outside her house in a field with her mother-in-law, namely, Most. Panwati Devi (not examined) and her minor daughter (‘X’) (PW-1) and minor daughter (‘Y’) (PW-3). At this stage, she has stated that the four accused persons, namely, (1) Raushan Kumar, (2) Gaurav Kumar, (3) Rupesh Kumar and (4) Kundan Kumar, who were waiting there with a pre-plan, pointed pistol on the informant and asked her to remain silent otherwise her head would be blown. The informant (PW-2) alleged that thereafter all the four persons took away her minor daughter (PW-1) aged about 15 years forcibly in a Scorpio vehicle. She alleged that all the four persons had kidnapped her daughter with an intention to commit gang rape and for prostitution. She has stated that after putting pressure on the guardians and under societal pressure, the victim girl was left/thrown at 10 O’ Clock in night on 21.05.2021. The informant alleged that from 19.05.2021 to 21.05.2021 all the four persons had committed rape on the victim. She alleged that when she used to go to police or for treatment then all the four criminals and their dozens of guardians and associates armed with weapons were threatening her to kill all the family members. She expressed apprehension that she may be killed by all the four accused persons, their guardians and the associates. On the written information, there is a thumb impression which is said to be of the informant (PW-2), but nobody has identified the thumb impression on the written application.

5. On the basis of this written application, Mahila P.S. Case No. 40 of 2021 dated 14.06.2021 was registered under Sections 376(DA), 363, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Sections 8 and 10 the POCSO Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

6. After investigation, police submitted a chargesheet, bearing No. 117/2021 dated 16.11.2021 against the accused. Later on, a supplementary chargesheet, bearing No. 65 of 2022 dated 31.10.2022, under Sections 376(DA), 363, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant keeping investigation pending against Raushan Kumar. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.11.2022, learned trial court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 376(DA), 363, 341, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Charges were read over and exp