The court emphasized that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that DNA evidence should be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence. The court also highlighted the importance of protecting the identity of child victims during the trial.

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against the judgment, dated 20th November, 2020, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. By virtue of the judgment, dated 20th November, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’) respondent-Shiv Lal @ Champi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) has been acquitted from charges framed against him, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’).

3. Brief facts, as emerge from the report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. are summed up as under:

On 25th August, 2014, the complainant approached the In-charge, Police Post Kishangarh with the complaint that her daughter (name withheld) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the child victim’) had left the home without informing her. The efforts to trace the child victim were made but, her whereabouts could not be ascertained. The complainant had expressed her suspicion that the accused had enticed away the child victim. Lastly, she had stated that the age of the child victim was about 17 years and prayed that the action be taken. The said complaint was forwarded to SHO, Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, where the case under Sections 363 and 366A IPC was registered. Thereafter, the police machinery swung into motion.

4. As per the documentary evidence collected by the prosecution, the date of birth of the child victim was found to be 22nd February, 1997. Efforts to trace the child victim were made but, her whereabouts could not be ascertained. Thereafter, on 5th October, 2014, the child victim was found alongwith her new born baby at Dhakru Majra in the rented accommodation of the accused.

5. Thereafter, the statement of the child victim was recorded and Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added in this case. The accused was arrested on 6th October, 2014. During the investigation, the DNA profiling of the child victim, accused and their new born baby was got conducted and the statement of the child victim was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6. After the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

7. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the learned trial Court found a prima facie case against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

8. The accused was accordingly charge-sheeted.

9. When the charges, so framed, were put to the accused, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Since, the accused had not admitted his guilt, as such, the prosecution was directed to adduce the evidence. Consequently, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses.

10. After the closure of the evidence, the entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused, was put to him, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the entire prosecution case and took the defence that he is innocent. However, the accused has not opted to adduce any evidence in his defence.

11. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor, as well as the learned defence counsel, has acquitted the accused from the charges framed against him vide the impugned judgment, dated 20th November, 2020.

12. Feeling aggrieved, the State has preferred the present appeal before this Court challenging the impugned judgment, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not considered the evidence in the right perspective and h