An accused's acquittal in a criminal trial must be upheld if the evidence presented is untrustworthy or if two plausible views on the evidence exist, favoring the accused.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this appeal as filed on behalf of the State the judgement and order of acquittal dated November 16, 2021 as passed in Special Trial No. 21 of 2015 arising out of Special Case No. 20 of 2015 by the Learned Special Judge (POCSO) Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair has been impugned. By the said judgement learned Trial Court found the accused not guilty under Sections 363/342 IPC and under Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and thus acquitted him under Section 235 (1) Cr. P.C.

2. The State felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant appeal after obtaining a leave from this Court under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C.

3. For effective adjudication of the instant appeal the facts leading to the initiation of the aforementioned Sessions Trial is required to be dealt with in a nutshell. One X (name not disclosed a per direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court since the victim is a child) a female child of Nine years old of Y place and a student of Class V was taken before the Child Line Team and before the said Child Line Team the said X stated that she used to live with her mother and her brother in the village ‘Z’.

4. She stated further that on 09.4.2015 when she was playing with a child of her village at that time at about 12 O’clock noon as per request of one of her aunt by village courtesy went to a shop to bring some grain when the said child met with the accused who persuaded her to sit in his auto. The accused thereafter took her into a room of a nearby house. The accused entered into the room with the said child and locked the door from inside. The accused showed some photos from his mobile and thereafter he led and made the said child to lay on him. The accused touched the waist of the child. The child became afraid and started crying and thereafter the accused wiped her tears and offered some money to her which the said child refused to accept and when the accused opened the door the child fled from the said house and reported the matter to her mother.

5. On the basis of aforementioned version of the said victim child an intervention report was prepared. The same was submitted with the SHO of Aberdeen PS and accordingly Aberdeen PS case No. 186 of 2015 dated 10.04.2015 under Section 342/363/354-A (i) IPC and under Section 7/8 POCSO Act was stated.

6. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted under Sections 342/363/354-A (i) IPC and under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act against the accused.

7. On September 17, 2015 learned Trial Court considered the charges against the accused and framed charges under Section 363/342 IPC and under Section 10 POCSO Act. The accused denied the charges as levelled against him and claimed to be tried and thus trial before the learned Trial Court proceeded.

8. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in all and several documents have been exhibited on their behalf.

9. Trial Court record reveals that on behalf the accused no evidence was adduced. However, from the trend of cross examination of PWs as well as from the answers as given by the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it appears to this Court that the defence case is based on clear denial and false implication.

10. Trial Court record revels further that the victim deposed as PW 1, while her mother deposed as PW 2. PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 are the co-villagers of the PW 1 and PW 2. PW 7 is the then SHO of PS Aberdeen. PW 8 is a Head Constable of Police who at that material time was posted at the said PS and is the recording officer. PW 9 is the Doct