The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent testimony and lack of corroboration can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J. (Open Court)--The present criminal leave to appeal petition under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), has been instituted on behalf of the State/petitioner assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 22.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in S.C. No.6619/2016, in case FIR No.75/2015, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); and Section 4 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, whereby Akash alias Gunni, the sole respondent, was acquitted of the charges.

2. The prosecution's case is premised on a compliant received from `RA' to the effect that his 15-year old daughter `R' went missing from their residence at House No.215, Masjid Moth, near South Extension Part-II, New Delhi at about 4 p.m. on 17.01.2015. The complaint revealed that Akash alias Gunni was suspected of having allured the minor victim away from the lawful custody of her father.

3. The prosecution's star witness was `R', the victim herself, who recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., before the competent Magistrate to the effect that Akash alias Gunni had enticed her to leave her parental home on the date of the commission of the offence; and taken her to a hotel near Masjid Moth, New Delhi, where he is alleged to have had sexual intercourse with her; and further that thereafter, he took her to Kashmere Gate for sightseeing.

4. Subsequent upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Akash alias Gunni under Sections 363/366/376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Akash alias Gunni denied the charges framed against him and claimed trial.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses; subsequent upon which Akash alias Gunni's statement under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. was recorded. The trial court having examined the evidence on the record, firstly, came to a conclusion that `R', the victim, was a minor on the date of the commission of the alleged offence and, therefore, her consent was immaterial. However, the trial court did not find the testimony of the victim `R' to be of sterling quality and creditworthy by observing as follows:

"27. The first opportunity for the Victim to reveal about sexual assault was before the Doctor by whom she was examined on the night of the incident. It is recorded in the MLC of the Victim that she did not reveal any history of sexual intercourse/assault to the Doctor. The Doctor is a neutral third person and there is no reason why she would record incorrect facts in the MLC. The Victim even refused to undergo an internal medical examination. This fact is recorded in the MLC itself and raises an adverse presumption against the Victim.

28. Victim was produced before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 19.01.2015 and her statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. She deposed before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate that she went with the accused on her own for getting married to him. She revealed to the Ld. Magistrate that she had consensual sexual intercourse with the accused. She did not reveal about the place of offence however. She only stated that she had sexual intercourse with the accused in a hotel which was located in a gali but she did not remember name of the gali.

29. When the Victim was examined in the Court as PW1, she stated specifically in her examination in chief that she went with the accused on her own and the accused did not commit any wrongful act against her.

30. Ld. SPP for the State sought permission of the court to put leading questions to the Victim U/S 154 Cr.P.C. Permission was granted. When the Victim was led by the prosecution, she deposed that she had consensual sexual int