The acquittal of the respondent was upheld due to significant inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of supporting evidence, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence in child sexual abuse cases.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 451 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, the “IPC”); Section 5 (m) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, the “POCSO Act”) read with Section 5 11 of the IPC, as also under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, vide the impugned Judgment, dated 27-04-2021, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.26 of 2018 (State of Sikkim vs. Prem Bahadur Biswakarma), by the Court of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Sikkim, at Gangtok. Aggrieved, the State-Appellant has assailed the Judgment.

(i) The Prosecution case commenced with the lodging of the FIR Ext 1, by PW-2 the Principal of the School, where PW-1 the victim was a student. It was reported therein that PW-2 learnt through two of her teachers PW-3 and PW-5 that, PW-1 aged about eleven years, who was living in the house of PW-4 and PW-7 and attending school, was “physically abused” by the Respondent a worker in the house of the paternal uncle of PW-4. The victim had confided in her teachers that the incident had occurred during the month of May, 2018.

(ii) Ext 1 was registered before the concerned Police Station, on the same date, against the Respondent, under Section 354 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Investigation into the matter was taken up by PW-13, who submitted Charge- Sheet against the Respondent under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

(iii) The Learned Trial Court on 12-10-2018 framed Charge against the Respondent under Sections 7 /8 of the POCSO Act; Section 5 (m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act [(sic.) an offence under Section 5 and any of its subsections is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and not Section 10 of the POCSO Act], read with Section 5 11 of the IPC and Section 451 of the IPC. The Respondent took the plea of “not guilty” to the charges and claimed trial. Thirteen witnesses were examined by the Prosecution. The Respondent was then examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the “Cr.P.C.”), affording him an opportunity of explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On analysing the entire evidence on record the Learned Trial Court acquitted the Respondent of all charges by concluding that the evidence of PW-1 did not inspire any confidence. That, there were material improvements in her claims against the Respondent while deposing before the Court. That, the discrepancies and improvements go to the root of the case and affect her credibility. That although, the Counsel for the Respondent did not specifically invite the attention of the victim to her statement given before the Magistrate ( Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement), she nonetheless categorically deposed that she had given the statement which could therefore not be overlooked by the Court. The Court also observed discrepancies in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and before the Court. It was observed that the medical evidence did not support the Prosecution case neither did the other Prosecution witnesses fortify the Prosecution case. The Learned Court discussed the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses and thereafter on finding no evidence against the Respondent acquitted him of all charges.

2. It is contended by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the victim in her testimony has detailed the commission of the offence. That, lack of injuries on the genital, anal area and person of the victim was due to the fact that the assault occurred in the month of May, 2018, but was belatedly reported o