The prosecution failed to establish the age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the accused's acquittal due to the principle of benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the State assailing the judgement dated 6th August, 2016 passed by the ASJ-01, (North West), Rohini, District Courts, New Delhi by which the Respondent has been acquitted by the Trial Court for charges under Sections 376 /354(D)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘ IPC ’) and Sections 4 /12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, ‘POCSO Act’) in Sessions Case No. 190/14. Factual Background

3. It is the case of the Prosecutrix that she and the accused were working together in a factory. The Accused would attempt to talk to her several times and used to also follow her, when she used to leave the factory. The Prosecutrix did not inform her parents about the said conduct as she was afraid that they would compel her to leave the job. According to the Prosecutrix, the alleged incident occurred on 19th August, 2014 when she had taken leave from the factory, as she was not feeling well. On that said date, the Accused is stated to have visited the residence of the prosecutrix at about 9 -9:30 AM in the morning. It is the allegation of the Prosecutrix that the Accused bolted the door from inside and raped her. The sister of the Prosecutrix happened to reach the residence for some work, the Accused was still present at the residence and he was hiding under the bed. The sister of the Prosecutrix saw the accused, she had bolted the door from outside and had called someone from the neighbourhood for help. When the door was unbolted, the Accused is stated to have escaped.

4. It is the further case of the Prosecutrix that the incident was informed to the father of the Prosecutrix after a couple days. Thereafter, on 24th August, 2014, the father of the Prosecutrix made a call to the P.S. Aman Vihar, stating that the accused had raped her daughter. The said information was recorded in DD No. 18 A at P.S. Aman Vihar. The father of the Prosecutrix then reached P.S. Aman Vihar along with his daughters i.e, the Prosecutrix and elder daughter. Inquiries were made by the Investigating Officer and the girl was sent for medical examination to SGM Hospital and MLC was prepared. Pursuant thereto, the statement of Prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and complaint was filed by the father of the Prosecutrix that the Accused had raped his daughter on 19th August, 2014, i.e., 6 days before the filing of the complaint. The FIR NO. 916/2014 was registered at P.S. Aman Vihar.

5. The accused was arrested upon being identified by the Prosecutrix, on 24th August, 2014. Thereafter, charges were framed against the Accused for offences punishable under Section 11 /12 of POCSO Act, alternatively under Sections 354 -D of IPC and 3(a) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under Sections 376 (2) (i) of and 506 of vide order on charge dated 13th February, 2015.

Proceedings before the Trial Court
6. In order to prove the charges against the Accused, 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of which certain key witnesses have confirmed the incident which has taken place. The key witnesses are as follows:

(i) PW-5, The Prosecutrix,
(ii) PW-6, Doctor at the SGM Hospital,
(iii) PW-7, Doctor at the SGM Hospital,
(iv) PW 9, Sister of the Prosecutrix,
(v) PW 13, father of the Prosecutrix,
(vi) PW 14, Independent witness.

7. However, in cross-examination, PW-14 denied that the accused was the same person who came out of the residence when the incident took place. Moreover, he also stated that the estimated age of the Prosecutrix, who was inside the room, would be around 18 years.

8. In order to prove the age of the Prosecutrix, the prosecution had also relied upon the testimony of PW-2, Mr. Rajendra Gautam, lab Assistant,