IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to prove sexual harassment and the punishment for sexual harassment under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C. referred hereinafter) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Court, Jamnagar in Special (POCSO) Case No.7 of 2014.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complaint came to be lodged before the Kalyanpur Police Station on 01.10.2013 by the father of the prosecutrix, who is aged 10 years studying in standard 4 at Juvanpur Kanya Shala, alleging that his daughter, during recess hours of school came for the lunch at around 1’O Clock on 30.09.2013 and left for school on completion of lunch around 01:45p.m., she came back to the home and was shouting when reason was asked about returning to home by the grandmother, she disclosed that Mohanbhai Mathurbhai Kanjaria, who is staying on opposite side of the house of the prosecutrix had taken her into the courtyard of his house by asking her that he would give her Rs.20 and thereafter had started molesting her, when she shouted, she was allowed to go back to her house. With the aforesaid allegation the complaint came to be filed under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

3. On filing this complaint, the accused came to be arrested on 02.10.2013 and was sent to the judicial custody. Thereafter, the accused was released on granting the bail by the competent court. At the end of the investigation, the report was submitted on 19.02.2013 before the Competent Court and the same was numbered as Special (POCSO) Case No.7 of 2014.

4. On being appeared by the respondent-accused, charge was framed below Exhibit 5 and plea came to be recorded below Exhibit 6 wherein the respondent-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined following witness and placed documentary evidences, which are mentioned hereinbelow.

Oral Evidence

Sr No. Particular Exhibit Nos.

1 P.W 1 Chandubhai Parmar 7

2 P.W.2 Jamanbhai R. Dabhi 12

3 P.W.3 Kamalben R. Dabhi 14

4 P.W.4 Kantaben (Prosecutrix) 15

5 P.W.5 Puriben Karawadara 17

6 P.W.6 Mukeshbhai M. Gadhvi 19

7 P.W.7 Ankurkumar D. Suthar 20

Documentary Evidence:

Sr No. Particular Exhibit Nos.

1 Panchnama of the place of offence 8

2 Original complaint 13

3 Lodgment of the station diary 18

4 List of entry made for arresting the accused 21

5 List of addition of section 22

6 Birth certificate of the prosecutrix of Juvanpur Kanya Shala 23

7 Copy of the Aadhar Card 24

8 Copy of the FIR being II-C.R.No.124 of 2013 25

5. On filing the closing pursis by the prosecution, statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’ referred hereinafter) came to be recorded wherein the accused had pleaded innocent and false implication in the offence. That after considering the evidence placed on record and arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the trial Court has passed the judgment and order of acquittal, which is impugned before this Court.

6. Heard the learned APP Ms.Monali Bhatt for the appellant-State and learned advocate Mr.Jatin Yadav for respondent-accused.

7. Learned APP Ms.Monali Bhatt submits that though the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges without giving proper weightage to the evidence of material witness. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt submits that learned trial Court has given more weightage to the cross FIR, which is produced at Exhibit 25, it comes on record from the FIR by the respondent-accused against the complainant that, after disclosing the offence to the parents, the complainant called the accused and after being reprimanded, he was assaulted by stick. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt submits that this would be the natural reaction being the father of the prosecutrix, who was molested by the respondent-accused, withou