The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authenticity of the prosecution case and the evidence provided must be carefully evaluated, and contradictory statements and admissions of pressure from witnesses can raise doubts about the charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Syed Waiz Mian, J.) :

1. By means of this Criminal Misc. Leave Application, on behalf of the State, leave for filing Government Appeal, against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of accused/respondent Firoz, dated 06.05.2019, passed by the Special Court (POCSO Act, 2012)/VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, arising out of Criminal Case No. 498 of 2016, State vs. Firoz, is being sought.

2. Heard Shri Om Prakash Mishra, Learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. In brief, the prosecution story is that informant, Rajendra, informed that 3-4 days earlier his wife had gone to Sisauli. His three children, were present in his house; on 12.10.2016, her daughter Sangeeta, aged about 17 years, at about 10 p.m. had gone to drink water at the tap installed out side his house; all of a sudden accused/respondent, having knife in his hand, came behind her and trapped her mouth and brought her in vacant room of his house, where he committed rape upon her; she informed the informant telephonically; when he come back, she narrated the entire story to him, whereafter he lodged an First Information Report, registered as Case Crime No. 267 of 2016, under Sections-342, 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station-Rohta, District-Meerut.

4. Upon entrustment, the investigating officer took over charge of the investigation and recorded the statements of the informant, accused, and of victim under Section 161; statement of victim was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; he also prepared site plan of the alleged place of occurrence; during investigation, the victim was put to medical examination, not only to ascertain her age but also to ascertain any mark of injury on her person and status of alleged rape.

5. Upon collecting the incriminating evidence against the accused/respondent, for offences under Sections 342, 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Investigating Officer forwarded the charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. to the Court concerned. Upon receiving the charge sheet and other material, learned Court below in exercise of powers enshrined under Section 190 (2) Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the aforestated offences against the accused/respondent and accordingly summoned him.

6. Learned trial Court vide order dated 15.01.2018 charged the accused and the same were explained and read over to him; he denied the charges and claimed trial.

7. Prosecution to prove it’s case, examined informant-P.W.-1 Rajendra, P.W.-2 victim-Sangeeta, P.W.3-Smt. Nirmala w/o Rajendra, P.W.-4-Dr. Isha Soni, P.W.-5 Dr. Sangeeta, P.W.6-Head Constable Police-Deepa Sharma, P.W.-7 Bhole, victim’s uncle and P.W.8- investigating officer, Sub Inspector-Rajendra Singh.

8. Statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of accused/respondent was also recorded. He in his statement said that the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-4, was false and statement of P.W.-3 victim was given under the pressure of her uncle Bhole and the victim told about the occurrence to Doctor was also under the pressure of her uncle. He has also said that he has been falsely implicated in this case upon pressure exerted by Bhole because prior to the present case a dispute regarding transaction of money was existing between him and Bhole and due to pre-existing enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case by Rajendra, brother of Bhole. He claims that he is innocent and he denied his complicity in the crime; he declined to adduce evidence in his defence.

9. Upon hearing the submissions on behalf of the parties, and scanning the records, learned trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 342, 376 and ¾ of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, thus, trial Court did not find the accused guilty under the aforesaid sections and consequently, acquitted him.

10. On behalf of the State, leave to file Government Appeal, under Section 308 (3) Cr.P