The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially in cases involving sexual assault allegations.

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. By the present criminal leave petition filed under section 378(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in sessions case No. 204/2013 whereby the respondent (accused before the trial court) was acquitted of the charges punishable under section 377 of Indian Penal Code read with section 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

2. The facts of the case, as noticed by the learned trial court, are as under :

“1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on October 29, 2013 at about 2 PM, complainant along with his friend Tausif and nephew i.e. victim went to the Police Station Jama Masjid and informed the police that accused Mullah Muzib had committed galat kaam with the victim. Accordingly, SI Suresh Pal made an inquiry from the victim, who confirmed the allegations of galat kaam. Accordingly, victim was sent to hospital in the custody of Const. Bittoo Kumar for medical examination. SI Suresh Pal (PW8) also reached the hospital and collected the MLC of victim. After medical examination, he recorded the statement of victim (since, the victim is a child of sexual assault, his identity is withheld and hereinafter he is Crl. referred to as victim). In order to conceal the identity of victim, identity of his maternal uncle is also withheld and hereinafter he is referred to as maternal uncle.

(i). It was alleged that victim in his statement Ex.PW1/A alleged that his mother left him with his maternal uncle so that he could learn some work. He was working at the tools shop. It was alleged that about 6-7 months ago, when he was sleeping in the parking, accused Mullah Muzib, who ran puncture shop, took him below a tree and asked him to sleep underneath a tirpal, thereafter, he put off his pant and when he refused, accused threatened him by stating to remain laid silently and thereafter he put off his pant and half pant of the victim and inserted his penis in his anus, he felt pain. Thereafter, accused asked him not to disclose the incident anyone otherwise he would kill him. It was alleged that accused repeated the same acts 2-3 times after the first incident. It was further alleged that on October 27, 2013 at about 10 PM when he went to public toilet to ease himself, accused followed him and entered the toilet and thereafter he bolted the door from inside. It was alleged that accused put off his pant and thereafter committed galat kaam in the same manner in which he committed earlier. It was alleged that he became perturbed from the acts of accused, consequently, he informed his maternal uncle and Tausif at whose shop he was working, accordingly, they took him to the police station.

(ii). On his statement, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) read with Section 6 & 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (in short POCSO) Act was got registered.

2. During investigation, accused was arrested and victim was produced before CWC. His statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr. P.C.) was got recorded. Accused was got medically examined and during medical examination, he was found fit to perform sexual intercourse. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC read with Section 6 & 10 of POCSO Act.

3. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C., a charge for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

3. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the respondent. The respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence led by prosecution and submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the