IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of proving offences beyond reasonable doubt and the significance of inconsistencies in witness testimony in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present Petition under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C., 1973") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/State seeking Leave to Appeal against the Judgment dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-06, Special Court, POCSO, Rohini District Courts, Delhi, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC, 1860") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act, 2012") vide FIR No. 446/2014 at Police Station Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the FIR No. 446/2014 under Section 376 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 was registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar on the Complaint dated 13.09.2014 made by the victim/prosecutrix "P". The Complaint stated that in the intervening night of 12-13.09.2014 while she was sleeping on the terrace of her house, she was raped by the respondent/accused in the night at about 01:00 A.M.

3. The investigations were carried out and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The respondent/accused was arrested. The victim/prosecutrix "P" was medically examined and her samples were sent to FSL for DNA profiling.

4. On completion of the investigations, the Charge Sheet under Section 376 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, was filed.

5. The charges under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, 1860 and under Section 6 read with 5(m) of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against the respondent/accused were framed by the ASJ, to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. The prosecution in support of its case examined total 14 witnesses, the most material ones being the victim who appeared as PW1, her Sister who appeared as PW2 and her mother as PW3 respectively.

7. The statement of the respondent/accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 on 27.02.2017 wherein he pleaded his innocence.

8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the material contradictions in the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix and concluded that the incident as narrated by her was highly improbable and gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused and consequently, acquitted the accused of all charges.

9. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 05.02.2020, the petitioner/State has preferred the present petition seeking Leave to Appeal against the Judgement dated 05.02.2020.

10. Submissions heard of the learned counsels for the parties and the documents and evidence perused.

11. The star witness of the prosecution was PW1/victim/prosecutrix "P". she was proved to be around 12 years of age on the date of incident, which fact has not been challenged or refuted by the respondent/accused.

12. The other aspect for consideration is that whether the commission of the offences was proved beyond reasonable doubt. PW1/victim/prosecutrix "P" deposed that in the intervening night of 12-13.09.2014 at about 01:00 A.M. while she was sleeping on the terrace of her house with her sister who was also sleeping along side, the respondent/accused forcibly opened her Salwar and committed sexual assault on her by putting his urinary part in her vagina. Her sister woke up and raised an alarm and called their mother. Thereafter, the police was called but the respondent/accused absconded.

13. The statement of the victim/prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ex.PW1/B.

14. Essentially, in her examination-in-chief, the victim/prosecutrix had been consistent with her statement given to the Police under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973. However, certain glaring admissions were made by her in the cross-examination. The most significant admission made by the victim/prosecutrix in her cross-examination is t