Contradictions between the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are a matter of trial and cannot be a sole ground for discharge if the other material on record discloses a prima facie case against an accused.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The State, by way of present revision petition filed under Section 397/482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.'), assails the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court-POCSO, North-West, Rohini, Delhi (`learned ASJ') in case FIR bearing no. 1125/2016, registered at Police Station Mangolpuri for offences punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 10 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act'), whereby the respondent/accused was discharged of commission of aforesaid offences.

2. The facts of the case, as unfolded from the charge sheet, are that on 17.12.2016, at about 9.15 AM, upon receipt of information, the concerned police officer had reached Govt. Co-ed. Senior Secondary School, Sultan Pur Mazra, Delhi, where complainant, aged around 15 years, her parents and her family members were present. The case of prosecution is that upon enquiry, the complainant stated that on 16.12.2016, her class teacher had caught hold of her hands after she had refused to give her mobile number and had told her "I like you" and had also put his hand under her waist and neck and thereafter, had pushed her towards the wall. Considering the nature of allegations, the complainant was counseled through an NGO. She had thereafter given a handwritten complaint, on the basis of which present FIR was lodged on 17.12.2016. In the handwritten complaint, the complainant had stated that on 16.12.2016, she had gone to the examination room of her school to meet and to inform her class teacher i.e. respondent herein, that she did not wish to be the monitor of the class. It was alleged that the accused had insisted that she be the monitor and had caught hold of her hand. It was further alleged that the accused had asked the complainant for her mobile number and upon refusal, he had kept his hand on her waist and neck, due to which complainant had become scared. The complainant had also stated that she had disclosed the entire incident to her mother, subsequent to which her parents had come to the school and had spoken to the principal, and in the meanwhile, someone had called the police.

3. During investigation, the complainant was medically examined at SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri vide MLC No. 23339/16 where she had refused to undergo internal examination. On 17.12.2016, the statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. The learned ASJ, vide impugned order dated 23.05.2018, discharged the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of POSCO Act, with the following observations:

"7....The victim in her hand written complaint had stated that on 16.12.2016, she went to the accused for telling that she does not want to be monitor, but the accused insisted for that and caught her hand. This fact in itself does hot constitute any offence as a teacher can caught hold of a student by his or her hand and merely by that act, no sexual intention is made out. The victim, however, further clarified that accused asked for her mobile number, which she refused and he touched her neck and back due to which she got scared. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, she did not mention these facts at all. There, she simply stated that she went to the accused being a class monitor to complaint about other students and the accused patted on her shoulder and said it does not matter, he will talk to those students. This act of a teacher of patting a shoulder of a student, to encourage that student to remain monitor of the class by no means and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be an act done with sexual intent. A teacher can always encourage the student by patting the shoulder of the student. No offence is made out against the accused, if the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C is read either in pieces or as a whole.

****

11. In the present case, statemen