Rape conviction quashed due to unreliable victim testimony with inconsistencies and improvements, manipulated age records doubting minority, absent medical evidence despite multiple claims, unexplained FIR delay, and improbable circumstances in populated area.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused/convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 19.04.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Shimla, H.P., in Case No. RBT 53-S/7 of 2019/21, whereby the accused-Kanwar Singh (appellant herein) was convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 3 and 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:

(a). On 06.12.2018, around 2/3 p.m., the child victim (name withheld and hereinafter referred to as “the victim”) went to the house of the accused, who was her grand-father, which was adjacent to her house. At that time one Krishan Kumar, maternal uncle of the victim, had also come there, but he left the house after some time. Thereafter, the victim went to the kitchen of the house of the accused for taking water and the accused followed her. The accused asked the victim to accompany her to the room, but she refused. However, the accused forcibly took the victim to a room, where he laid her on a bed. The victim screamed, but no one could hear her screams. At that time, the father of the victim had gone with mules and her mother had gone to Chirgaon bazaar. The accused forcibly removed the trousers of the victim and committed sexual intercourse with her. Prior to this incident also, the accused had committed sexual intercourse with the victim on 2-3 occasions, but the victim, apprehending damage to her modesty, did not disclose those incidents to anyone.

(b). It has further come in the prosecution story that on 22.12.2018 the accused went to attend Satsang and he left his mobile phone with the victim for charging the same. On 25.12.2018 when the accused returned home, the victim had disclosed the entire occurrence to her mother, therefore, the accused did not come back to take his mobile phone from the victim. On 27.12.2018, the victim alongwith her father went to the local police station and lodged a complaint, whereupon her medical was got conducted by the police and FIR under the apt sections was registered. During the medical examination of the victim, scientific samples were collected, which were sent to FSL for analysis. Police visited the place of occurrence, prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses, clicked photographs, statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the accused was arrested and got medically examined. Statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, police presented the chargesheet before the learned Trial Court.

3. 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 claimed innocence and denied the prosecution case, however, in defence he had not led any evidence.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 19.04.2022 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(3) IPC and sentenced him to undergo r