The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal in sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2022 and order dated 23.02.2022 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court)vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced as under:-

2. It was ordered that the victim would be paid 50% compensation out of the fine amount if realised. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. It was asserted that the victim 'A' (name being withheld to protect her identity) made a complaint (Ext.PW-1/A) before the Women Police Station, asserting that she and her mother were working in a Company. The accused is a Pandit. She returned to her home on 13.07.2019. Her mother sent her and her brother to the house of the accused, with the direction to bring holy rice treated with mantra. When they reached the house of the accused, the accused sent the victim's brother to bring cardamom. He called the victim to his room and bolted the room from inside. He drew the curtain and raped her. The victim tried to shout, but the accused gagged her mouth. The victim's brother returned after some time, and they went to their home where the victim narrated the incident to her mother. The matter was reported to the police and F.I.R. (Ext.PW-10/A was registered at the Police Station.

4. Inspector Desh Raj (PW-14) investigated the case. He filed an application (Ext.PW-4/A) for conducting the medical examination of the victim. Dr Poonam Sharma (PW-4) conducted the medical examination of the victim and found that she had suffered an abrasion on the vaginal opening, which could have been caused within 72 hours of the examination. She preserved the sample and blood of the victim on the FTA card for DNA profiling. She filled the identification form (Ext.PW-4/B). She issued an MLC (Ext.PW-4/D) stating that there was nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place;however, the exact duration of the incident could not be narrated. She handed over the MLC and the samples to the police official accompanying the victim. An application (Ext.PW-11/A) was also filed for recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Rahul (PW11 ) learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Solan recorded the statement of the victim (Ext.PW-11/B). Inspector Desh Raj (PW-14) arrested the accused on 19.07.2019. He filed an application (Ext.PW-5/A) for conducting the medical examination of the accused. Dr Gurmail Singh (PW-5) conducted the medical examination of the accused and found that he had not sustained any injuries. He preserved the samples, underwear (Ex.P-4), undervest ((Ext.P-5),and pubic hair. He obtained a blood sample of the accused on the FTA card for DNA profiling. In his opinion, there was nothing to show that the accused was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. He issued MLC (Ext.PW-5/C). The case property was deposited with Vishal Singh (PW-10), who deposited it in Malkhana. The victim showed the place of the incident. An identification memo (Ext.PW1/B) was prepared. She identified a Thermocol sheet (Ext. P-2), upon which