The judgment emphasizes the presumption of innocence of the accused, the need for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with an order of acquittal, and the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases.

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

1. Present leave to appeal petition has been filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 07.10.2014 passed by Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Session’s Case No. 03/13, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed under Section 376(2)(g)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 377 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of this case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court in the judgment are enumerated as under:

“On September 17, 2010, complainant (PW4) got recorded her statement (Ex. PW4/A) to SI Balbir Singh.

(i) In her statement Ex. PW4/A, it was alleged that she was residing at H. No. 11850/9, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi along with her family and doing household work. It was alleged that at about 1½ years ago her husband had passed away. Her eldest son aged 13 years (Victim Y), daughter aged about 12 years (Victim X) and youngest son (Victim Z) aged 7 years were studying in J.D Tytler Public School. Since, the atmosphere of the school was not good, thus she got her daughter i.e. victim 'X' admitted in the Salwan Girls Sr. Sec. School, Old Rajinder Nagar.

(ii) It was alleged that accused Lalit Ratawal used to take her children in his Maxi Cab bearing registration No. DL-1K 6380 to J.D. Tytler School. About 1½ years ago, he took her daughter i.e. victim 'X', alone in his Maxi Cab and gave her some toffee like thing. On that day both of her sons had not gone to school. After eating toffee, her daughter i.e. victim 'X' fell unconscious. It was alleged that after dropping other children at school, accused took the victim 'X' to Madhur's home, who also studied in J.D. Tytler School in 8th standard. When her daughter i.e. victim X re-gained consciousness, she found that she was naked. It was alleged that accused Lalit Ratawal and Madhur had sexually assaulted the victim 'X' and filmed her. When her daughter protested, they threatened to expose her on internet and also threatened that they would kill her.

(iii) It was further alleged that after 3-4 days of the said incident, when accused Lalit Ratawal took above her three children to school, he did not allow them to get down at the school from van and took them to Madhur's house where another boy named Sarthak, who was Madhur's classmate, was already present there. It was alleged that accused Lalit Ratawal, Madhur and Sarthak forced her children to drink liquor and later on they all sexually assaulted her daughter (victim X) and also performed unnatural sex with her both sons i.e. victim Y and victim Z.

(iv) It was alleged that after a week, accused Lalit Ratawal again took the victims in his van but instead of taking them to school, he took them to Madhur's house where two other boys namely Pawan and Anup were already present and they all five persons performed unnatural sex and raped her daughter. It was alleged that since then all the five persons used to do unnatural sex with her sons i.e. victim Y and victim Z and also raped her daughter i.e. victim X.

(v) It was alleged that in the month of Sawan she had received a dirty SMS on her mobile no. 9560348070. After going through the same, she suspected something fishy, accordingly she made an inquiry from her children and when they narrated the incidents to her, she made a call to police at 100.

(vi) On her statement, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 376, 377, 506, 34 IPC was got registered.

3. Charges for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 377 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the guilt against the respondent, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses in all. Statement of the respondent was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he reiterated his innocenc