The admissibility of evidence, especially hearsay evidence, and the requirement for corroboration in the absence of the victim's evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1) (a) (b) of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the acquittal rendered in Judgment dated 29.10.2020 made in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. The State preferred this criminal appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 29.10.2020 passed in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2018.

2. The victim is the daughter of PW1. She was kidnapped by the respondent on 22.12.2017 at 3.00 a.m, and he had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and thereafter he dropped her in her house. Therefore, the appellant police registered a case in Crime No.301 of 2017 for the alleged offence under Sections 366 @ 366A IPC r/w 5 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed the final report before the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge summoned the accused and served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C and framed charges and questioned the respondent. The respondent denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and he stood for trial.

3. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.18 and marked the Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. During the course of the trial, the victim girl was dead and hence, she was not examined. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused on the basis of the material adduced by the prosecution under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the respondent/accused denied the same as false and he did not examine any witness on his side to prove the case.

4. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence, acquitted the respondent from all the charges. The learned trial Judge specifically held that in the absence of the statement of the victim girl, the conviction on the basis of the circumstantial evidence is not sustainable. There was no evidence to prove the aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed by the appellant. In the said circumstances, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent. Challenging the same, the State preferred this criminal appeal.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim girl gave the 164 Cr.P.C statement and the same was admissible under the Evidence Act to convict the respondent for the above said alleged offence. The same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the victim girl immediately disclosed the factum of the aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed by the respondent to the PW.1, who is none other than her father and PW2. In the said circumstances, the above evidence is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and hence, the prosecution clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Once sufficient evidence is available that the appellant kidnapped the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the presumption under the Act comes and the respondent did not produce any evidence to rebut the same and hence, the judgement passed by the learn it trial Judge is liable to be set aside and the proper conviction and sentence could be imposed upon the respondent.

6. The learned counsel Mr.P.Arun Jayatram, appearing for the respondent/accused submitted that there was no evidence to prove the charge of aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed by the respondent on the deceased victim girl. Further, the medical evidence also not collaborated the prosecution case. The Doctor did not find any injury on the body of the victim girl. The 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl is not admissible without their evidence. Hence, the learned trial Judge correctly acquitted the accused on the ground that in the absence of the victim girl's evidence for the grave charge of aggravated penetrative sexual assault the offence under Section 366 IPC is not made out. He further submitted that the offence under Section 366 IPC is not made out on the ground of the finding of the learned trial Judge