VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The State has preferred the present appeal upon grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 24.11.2016 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, South East District, New Delhi in Case No. 1808/16, Sessions Case No. 209/13, arising out of FIR No. 369/2013 registered at Police Station- Badarpur under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/Accused- Khursheed, inter alia, on the premise that the testimony of the prosecutrix was untrustworthy due to various improvements, contradictions and inconsistencies in the same. The trial court held that the accused has cast serious doubts on the case of the prosecution and raised a possibility of false implication.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2013 at 6:15 PM, W/SI Krishna vide DD 39A, met with the complainant-Sheela Devi (PW8) and her daughter aged 8 years- prosecutrix (PW1), at PS Badarpur. The complainant stated that she lived with her 2 daughters and 3 sons in a rented accommodation at H. No. 316, Ajju Colony, Badarpur, New Delhi. On the said day, when the complainant returned home from her job around 3:00 PM, her daughter- prosecutrix, who was a student of 4th class in a government school was missing from their house. She started searching for her daughter and upon suspicion, she went to the nearby room of Khursheed and pushed open the door of his room. She found that the accused Khursheed had put the prosecutrix on the floor and had removed her lower clothes. She added that Khursheed had also removed his own pant and was lying over the prosecutrix. The complainant pushed him away, upon which he ran away from the spot after wearing his pant. She further stated that she was informed by the prosecutrix herself that the accused- Khursheed had taken her to his room on the pretext of giving her a toffee, but instead, committed rape upon her and when she started raising noise, the accused had put his hand on her mouth.

4. On the statement of the complainant, the case was registered and investigated. The prosecutrix and the accused were got medically examined. Samples were collected by the doctor during examination of accused and the victim, which were also seized. The accused was arrested and produced before the Court. The statement of the victim was also got recorded before the learned Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under section 376 IPC and Sections 4 of the POCSO Act was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi. The court framed charge against the accused under section 376 IPC and section 6 POCSO Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all, including PW1- victim/prosecutrix; PW2 Dr. Piyush Sharma- the doctor who examined the accused; PW4 Dr. Monica Gupta- the doctor who examined the victim; PW8 complainant- mother of the prosecutrix, and; PW11 W/SI Krishna- IO.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove the charge was put to the accused. The accused denied all evidences put to him while recording his statement under s. 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence and alleged that he was falsely implicated in the case on account of a dispute with the complainant- mother of prosecutrix. The trial court, as aforesaid, has acquitted the respondent accused, and thus, the present appeal.

7. We are mindful of the principles applicable to examination of a judgment of acquittal in appeal. In Sheo Swarup & Ors. v. The King-Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2), the Privy Council laid down the following principles that the High Court should follow while examining the