The acquittal of the accused was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, guided by the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 02.08.2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 08-ST/7 of 2014, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted from the charges under Sections 363 , 366, 506, 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:

2(a). The minor victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) was living with her parents at village Majra and she received a call from the accused on the mobile phone of her brother and the accused disclosed that he loved her and wanted to marry her. The prosecutrix refused to marry the accused owing to different religion. Subsequently, on 27.10.2013 the accused sent a girl with muffled face, who gave a mobile phone to the prosecutrix and on 29.10.2013, on that mobile phone, the accused directed the prosecutrix to accompany him. On 29.10.2013 again a girl with muffled face came to the house of the prosecutrix and she took her to a place where waste material was disposed of by the family of the prosecutrix and the accused was already present there with his scooty. The accused made the prosecutrix to sit on his scooty at the point of knife and took her to Chandigarh, where she was kept in two hotels for some days. After some days, the accused hired a room in the house of Piara Singh where he committed rape with the prosecutrix.The accused took the prosecutrix to a temple, where he solemnized marriage with her at the point of knife and also got the photographs clicked. The prosecutrix was made to sign some blank papers by the accused, which were later on converted into some documents. Subsequently, the prosecutrix managed to escape from the custody of the accused and she contacted her brother on phone. The police alongwith the brother of the prosecutrix came to a park at Chandigarh, where her custody was handed over to her brother. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities, viz., spot maps were prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded, apt recoveries were effected, prosecutrix as well as the accused were got medically examined and record qua the date of birth of the prosecutrix was obtained. After completion of the investigation, police presented the chargesheet before the Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court took cognizance against the accused and charges under Sections 363 , 366, 506, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were framed against him. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined seventeen witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 02.08.2014 acquitted the accused, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State.

5. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned vice counsel for the accused/respondent and carefully examined the entire records.

6. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the Trial Court has ignored the relevant material and not appreciated the statements of the witnesses in its right perspective. The learned Trial Court took a hyper technical view and the impugned judgm