The testimonies of the victims should be of sterling quality consistent with other prosecution evidence leaving no shadow of doubt over its veracity.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

Crl.M.A. 12189/2017 (Delay)

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner/State seeking condonation of 75 days” delay in filing the present leave to appeal.

2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.

3. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.L.P. 426/2017

4. The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Judge Special Court (“Trial Court”) in SC 44621/2015 arising out of FIR 196/2015 registered at PS Bhajanpura, whereby the accused/respondent herein stands acquitted of all charges against him.

5. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is as under:

“1. On 17.02.2015, complainant Smt. Sunita made a complaint to the police stating that she had been residing at her house with her two minor daughters i.e. victim 'G' – aged about 7 years and victim 'S' – aged about 4 years. Her husband had expired about one-and-half year ago. She used to work in a hanger manufacturing factory. Whenever, she used to go for her work, her both daughters used to remain in the house alone. She alleged that on 15.02.2015 when she returned to her house after work, at about 5.00pm, her elder daughter (victim 'G') told her that Pramod uncle (accused) had disrobed her and committed wrong acts with her and that he also inserted his urinary organ into the urinating part of victim 'S' after applying saliva on it, as a result of which she was feeling burning and that he also threatened that if she disclosed his acts to anyone, he would beat her. The complainant further stated that the accused was known to her as they had resided as co-tenants in a house earlier.”

6. On the basis of above complaint, the present case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 376/354-B/506 of this Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). The accused was arrested. Statement of both the victims under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.

7. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against respondent before the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 376/354-B/506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On hearing the counsel for the parties, charges were framed against the respondent for the said offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. The statement of the respondent was recored under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating circumstance put to him and pleaded innocence. He further stated that he had lent Rs.1,500/- to the complainant/mother of the prosecutrixes and as he had demanded his dues, he was falsely implicated in the case by the complainant by tutoring her daughters.

9. The Trial Court found that there was a possibility of the FIR being ante dated, there were contradictions in the deposition of the two prosecutrixes (PW-7 and PW-8) and were inconsistent with other prosecution evidence, the forensic and medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution and there was a possibility of the minor prosecutrixes being tutored and hence, acquitted the respondent/accused.

10. Mr.Katyal, learned counsel for the State, submitted that the impugned judgment is not premised on the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court had failed to consider the testimonies of the prime prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8, in the right perspective. He submitted that there are no material contradictions in their testimonies and are consistent and trustworthy. The contradictions noticed by the Trial Court were minor in nature and do not go to the root of the matter. They are further justified having regard to the minor age of the