The standard of proof in criminal cases requires clear and consistent evidence, particularly when victim testimony shows major contradictions, which may create reasonable doubt about the credibility of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Appeal under Section 378 (1) Cr.P.C. has been filed to challenge the Order of acquittal dated 20.08.2016 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge in FIR No.1180/2015 under Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 10 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(POCSO Act).

2. The brief facts are that on 09.12.2015, information was received about assault of a nine years old girl by her neighbour. An inquiry was initiated during which SI Pramod Kumar along with Ct. Vinay went to the house of the prosecutrix where he met the child with her Aunt (Ms.V). It was found that the alleged accused was in the house which was in the neighbourhood and was in a drunken condition. The IO along with the prosecutrix and her Aunt went to the house of the accused where they met him and he was recognized by the prosecutrix.

3. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded wherein she stated that on that day at about 7:00 pm she was going to a shop for making some purchases when one person caught hold of her hand and took her to a dark corner in the Park where he did “Cherkhani” with her. That man was under the influence of alcohol. The child raised an alarm on which the man ran away. She came back home and informed her aunt ‘V’ about it.

4. On her statement, FIR No.1180/2015 under Section 354 IPC was recorded. During investigation the statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On the identification of the prosecutrix, the Respondent/Accused was arrested. On completion of investigation Charge Sheet was filed in the Court.

5. Charges were framed on 28.03.2016 under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act.

6. The prosecution in support of its case, examined three witnesses PW1 being the prosecutrix, PW2 Aunt ‘V’ and PW3 SI Pramod Kumar IO.

7. The statement of the Respondent/Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence and stated that his signatures had been obtained on some blank papers and printed proforma by the Police and had been subsequently used against him. No such alleged incident took place and he has been implicated falsely in this case.

8. He examined DW1 Mamta, wife of Respondent/Accused who deposed that on 09.12.2015 at about 7.00 pm, Puran husband of Ms. ‘V’ came to the house and he along with her husband consumed liquor. Thereafter a quarrel ensued. Then he and the wife of Puran came to their house and picked a quarrel. She bolted the door after which Puran and his wife started kicking at the door. She made a PCR call and the PCR officials arrived. Ms. ‘V’ thereafter, made false allegations of commission of sexual assault upon her niece by her husband.

9. Learned ASJ appreciated the testimony of all the parties and noted the material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, benefit of doubt was given to the Respondent who was acquitted.

10. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the prosecution has filed the Appeal. The grounds of challenge are that the judgment is based on conjectures and surmises and against the facts and law. It has not been appreciated that the victim had narrated the entire incident in her statement as to the Police as well as in her statement under Section 164 wherein the role of the Respondent was specifically described. The Trial Court did not consider the tender age of the prosecutrix who was barely nine years old and minor; deviation due to passage of time was natural since the incident had taken place some time back. The child is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in a life and would never forget them for the