VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present appeals have been preferred by the complainant- mother of the victim (Crl. Appeal No. 592/2018) and the State (Crl Appeal No. 594/2018) upon grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 04.01.2017 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, (Designated Special Court Under the POCSO Act 2012) South East District, New Delhi in Case No. 1385/16, Sessions Case No. 212/13, arising out of FIR No. 673/2013 registered at Police Station-Govindpuri under Sections 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/Accused- Akram, inter-alia, on the premise that the testimony of the prosecutrix was untrustworthy due to many variations, contradictions and inconsistencies. The trial court held that the accused was able to discharge his onus by casting serious doubts on the case of the prosecution and raising doubts about possibility of his false implication.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.2013 at 11:13 PM, vide DD. No. 102B, the police received an information on telephone that about 4/5 days back, rape had been committed upon a girl aged 7 years. W/SI Seema (PW-6) reached the address where the complainant-Chand Bibi (PW-2) met her and got recorded her statement. In her statement to the police, the complainant alleged committal of rape upon her daughter by the accused. She stated that on 22.09.2013, at about 06:00PM, when she went to the market to buy vegetables, her daughter aged 7 years was playing outside their house and the accused-Akram upon finding the prosecutrix alone, took her to the roof of the building where he used to reside and committed rape upon her. She stated that her daughter did not tell her anything for 3 days and instead kept weeping and waking up during the nights due to fear of the occurrence which had happened with her.

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 during examination of the 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 Section 6 of the POCSO Act was filed. 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 13 witnesses in all, including PW-1 victim/prosecutrix, PW-2 Chand Bibi the complainant and mother of the prosecutrix, PW-3 Dr. Hari Prasad the doctor who examined the accused, PW-5 Dr. Kavita Kaniwal- the doctor who examined the victim/prosecutrix, PW-6 Sushma counsellor who examined the victim/prosecutrix, PW-12 Neeta Khaturia-School Principal and PW-13 W/SI Seema- IO.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the evidence led by the prosecution was put to the accused. The accused denied the same. He alleged false implication on account of a dispute with the complainant-mother of prosecutrix. He led defence evidence of three witnesses, viz. Hazi Mohammad (DW-1), Rehmat Ali (DW-2) and, Kalaam (DW-3). The trial court, as aforesaid, has acquitted the respondent accused, and thus, the present appeals.

7. In Sheo Swarup and Others vs. 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 judgment of acquittal:

“.......the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3)