A conviction for sexual assault cannot be based on inconsistent testimony alone if it lacks corroboration from forensic or medical evidence. The court must evaluate defense and prosecution witnesses equally and extend the benefit of doubt when the prosecution case is plagued by material improbabilities.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Court of the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), South Sikkim, at Namchi, vide Judgment dated 30-06-2022, in ST(POCSO) Case No.27 of 2020 (State of Sikkim vs. Rup Narayan Rai (Chamling) and Others) acquitted the Respondent No.1 of the following offences;

(a) under Sections 5(l) and 5(n), both punishable under Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, the "POCSO Act");

(b) under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 and under Section 9(l) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act;

(c) He was also acquitted of the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC") by extending to him the benefit of doubt.

(i) The Respondents No.2 and 3 who were charged under Section 201 of the IPC and Respondent No.4 under Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act were also acquitted of the offences that they were charged with. Aggrieved, by the acquittals the instant Appeal has been filed.

2. Prior to delving into the merits of the matter a brief summation of the Prosecution case is essential. On 14-08-2020, PW-2 the cousin of PW-1 (the victim), being her uncle‘s son, lodged the FIR Ext-4, before the jurisdictional police station, complaining that PW-1, who was studying in Class VI was entrusted to the care of the Respondent No.1 for her education and lived in his house. On 14-08-2020, the Respondent No.1 came to the house of PW-2 along with his wife Respondent No.2 and the minor victim PW-1 to visit. Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 went for their personal work elsewhere and were to pick up PW-1 later that day. Having spent the day at the home of PW-2, PW-1 refused to return with Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in the evening. On enquiry for her refusal, she told PW-2 that between 07-07-2020 and 08-07-2020 up to 12-08-2020, Respondent No.1 had touched her inappropriately when she was alone in his TV room at his home located village in 'S‘ and also raped her about four to five times. On 12-08-2020, she had again been raped by the Respondent No.1 i.e., two days before her visit to her family on 14-08-2020.

(i) The police station on receipt of the FIR, registered Case No.20(08)2020, dated 14-08-2020, under Sections 6/10 of the POCSO Act only against the Respondent No.1. On completion of investigation, Chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons as follows;

1. Rup Narayan Rai (Chamling), under Section 06/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012;

2. Shreelal Gurung, under Section 212 of IPC;

3. Padma Kri, Chettri (Rai), under Section 201 IPC;

4. Damber Kr. Chettri, under Section 201 IPC;

5. Arun Kr. Pradhan, under Section 201 IPC; and

6. Upashna Rai, under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.

(ii) The Trial Court framed Charge against the Respondent No.1 (Accused No.1 before the Trial Court) under Sections 5(l) and 5(n) both punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, Section 9(l) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, Section 376(2)(n), Section 376(3) and Section 354 of the IPC.

(iii) Charge was framed against the Respondent No.2 (Accused No.3 before the Trial Court) wife of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 (Accused No.4 before the Trial Court), under Section 201 of the IPC individually.

(iv) Charge was framed against the Respondent No.4 (Accused No.6 before the Trial Court) daughter of Respondent No.1 under Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act.

(v) Charge was framed against one Sh