The judgment reinforces the presumption of innocence and emphasizes the need for compelling reasons to interfere with an order of acquittal.

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.'), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01/Judge Special Court, POCSO Act, Shahdara District, Karkardooma, Delhi in Case FIR No. 271/2013 under Sections 354A/354/506/341 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 8 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station - M. S. Park, Delhi whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charged offences.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 23.09.2013, mother of the victim/child came to the police station and made a written complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent inappropriately touched her daughter. On this complaint, an FIR in the instant matter was registered and the accused was arrested. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court.

3. To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 07 witnesses in all. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Trial Court wherein he pleaded not guilty, he reiterated his innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated by the mother of the victim/prosecutrix to avoid payment of the work got done by her from the accused. The respondent did not lead any witness in his defence.

4. Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State contended that the Impugned Judgment is based on presumptions, conjectures and surmises and cannot stand the scrutiny of law and is not sustainable; that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix as well as other incriminating evidence against the respondent, which are consistent and points towards the guilt of the accused person; that the learned Trial Court erroneously disbelieved the version of the victim/prosecutrix and the arrest of the respondent as well.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the available material on record.

Age of the prosecutrix

6. Admittedly, the school certificates being a legal document and having evidentiary value, has to be given due weightage as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram, (2006) 5 SCC 736. The Apex Court in the said case held as under:

"12. A register maintained in a school is admissible in evidence to prove date of birth of the person concerned in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Such dates of births are recorded in the school register by the authorities in discharge of their public duty

13....It may be true that an entry in the school register is not conclusive but it has evidentiary value. Such evidentiary value of a school register is corroborated by oral evidence as the same was recorded on the basis of the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix."

7. The prosecution has been able to bring on record the school certificates of the prosecutrix i.e. Ex.PW4/A (X class Marksheet), Ex.PW4/B (Admission Form for Class XI), Ex.PW4/C (Admission Form for Class VI), Ex.PW4/D (School Leaving Certificate). All these documents proved the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 06.02.1998, which remain unrebutted and unchallenged. The alleged incident is stated to have been taken place on 23.09.2013, which clearly suggest that the age of the prosecutrix was about fifteen and half years at the time of alleged incident. Thus, the onus on the prosecution to prove that the prosecutrix was minor, has been effectively discharged by the prosecution.

Testimonies of material witnesses

8. In Shivasharanappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705, it was held :-

"17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless t