The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the testimony of the prosecutrix to be consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by other evidence. The judgment also emphasizes the presumption of innocence of the accused and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb an acquittal.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. The present Leave petition has been instituted under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgement dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 58/2013 by which the respondents herein have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

“On 04.04.2008, at about 2.15 pm, an information was received in PS Aman Vihar through wireless operator that in house no.253 (new number 854), Gali no. 5, Y block, Aman Vihar, Prem Nagar- II, rape had been committed with a girl on 28.03.2008. The said information was recorded as DD no. 20-A and the information thereof, was given to HC Bhagwan, who along with Ct. Raj Kumar, proceeded to the spot. Simultaneously, the SHO, PS Aman vihar also directed SI K.S Dogra to go to the spot to conduct investigation in the matter. Accordingly, the aforesaid police party went to the spot, where they found child victim R, her parents and accused Bablu. Finding the matter to be in respect of sexual assault upon a child victim, SI K.S. Dogra called for Lady Constable. Accordingly, L/Ct.Rajbala reached at the spot. In presence of parents of child victim and L/Ct. Rajbala, SI K.S. Dogra made inquiries from the child victim R (hereinafter referred to as child victim) and recorded her statement, wherein she stated that on 28.03.2008 at about 4.45 pm, she alone was present in her house. Accused Soni, who resides in the neighbourhood came to her house and asked her to come to her house for correcting the channels of T.V. She accordingly, went to her house, where accused Bablu was already present. After leaving her in the room with accused Bablu, accused Soni went outside. Accused Soni bolted the door from outside. In the room, accused Bablu committed penetrative sexual assault upon her against her consent, upon which, she raised alarm. After hearing her screams, her mother came there, after opening the door. Accused Bablu ran away from the spot. Her mother brought her to their house, where she narrated the entire incident to her mother. She and her mother did not report the matter to the police, out of fear of ignominy. Thereafter, on 04.04.2008 her parents apprehended accused Bablu and called police at number 100.

After recording of the statement of child victim, SI K.S. Dogra (hereinafter referred to as IO) prepared tehreer and got the case FIR registered in the matter, through Ct. Raj Kumar. IO prepared site plan at the instance of child victim. Accused Soni was summoned from her house and both the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted. Accused Bablu made disclosure statement and also got the place of incident identified. Thereafter, the child victim as well as accused were sent for medical examination in SGM hospital, where their MLCs were conducted and the exhibits were obtained including the undergarments of child victim. Statement of child victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The exhibits were sent for FSL examination. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet in the matter was filed.

2. After filing of the charge sheet in the matter, the copy thereof, was supplied to the accused. On 09.01.2012, charges u/s 376 IPC read with Section 109 IPC were framed against both the accused persons and a separate charge u/s 376 IPC was framed against the accused Bablu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

3. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in all. One more witness was summoned by the court as CW-1. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby they claimed to be innocent. In their defence, accused persons examined one witness Sh. Kailash as DW-1.

4. Ms. Anita Abraham learned APP for the State has contended that the order of the trial court is bad in law as the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the