The presumption of innocence and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb an acquittal order.

JUDGMENT :

Manmohan, J.

Present criminal leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the judgment/order of acquittal dated 17th November, 2018 passed by Judge Special Court (POCSO Act), ASJ-01 (North East Distt.), Karkardooma, Delhi in FIR No. 192/2012 under Sections 376/323/342/506 IPC registered with Police Station Karawal Nagar.

2. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment while acquitting respondent-accused has held as under:-

"82. I find that in the initial complaint Ex.PW1/A, victim had stated that one day, when she had gone to the house of accused Mohit to get milk, he raped her and thereafter, in a room of his house on the first floor and thereafter, he repeatedly raped her. A similar stand was taken by her when her first statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (ExPW1/B) was recorded. However, three months later, she changed her stand with regard to accused Mohit when her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW17/DA) was recorded on the directions of CWC, the legality of which I am not inclined to take up at this stage. In that statement, she stated that she was in love with accused Mohit. They used to meet regularly and used to go for outings. However, one day accused Jagmohan raped her. After she had been raped by accused Jagmohan, with her own consent, accused Mohit established physical relations with her but when she was found pregnant, at the instance of accused Kiran, she falsely implicated accused Mohit.

83. When her second statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/C) was recorded, she stated that she loved Mohit. She further stated that mother and father of accused Jagmohan gave her bhabhuti and at their instance, she levelled false allegations against accused Mohit stating that he had raped her.

84. When she appeared as PW1, when only accused Mohit was facing trial, she only stated in her examination in chief about she being raped by accused Jagmohan. She stated that it was at the instance of accused Kiran that she had stated to the police that she was in love with accused Mohit and that accused Mohit had raped her. She did not state anything about accused Mohit raping her and then she was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP.

85. During her cross examination by learned Addl. PP, she denied that she used to talk to accused Mohit. She denied that she was concealing material facts regarding the incident by accused Mohit and then she stated that first accused Jagmohan had raped her and then accused Mohit also used to rape her. Then she went on to state that when her second statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she could not tell that Mohit had also raped her because she was not questioned about accused Mohit.

86. A careful consideration of the material on record would reveal that victim has been changing her stand with regard to accused Mohit. Initially, she had stated that one day, when she had gone to get milk from the dairy of accused Mohit, he had taken her to a room on the first floor of his house and raped her and thereafter, under threats, he had repeatedly raped her. However,03 months later, she changed her stand and stated that she was in love with accused Mohit and after she had been raped by accused Jagmohan, accused Mohit had established consensual physical relations with her. This statement of the witness cannot be said to be given under the influence of accused Mohit or accused Jagmohan and Kiran because she had stated during her examination in chief dated 28.04.2018, that when this statement was recorded by the IO, her brother in law was sitting outside the room. Therefore, the reason for this child being under fear had been removed by then. When her second statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/C) was recorded, she remained completely silent about she being raped by accused Mohit and she tried to explain it by saying that she could tell about it in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. because she was not questioned about accused Mohit.

87. However, it is noticeable that in that statement also, she had categorically stated she was