IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof lie with the prosecution, which must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is by the informant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 7.12.2023, passed by the court below in P.S.T. No. 156 of 2022 (State Vs. Bhura @ Vimal & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 421 of 2021, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rasoolpur, District Firozabad.

2. Informant is the father of the victim, who has given a written report on 26.10.2021 stating that he works in different district in order to take care of his family. His family is living in the house of one Shivraj Katheria for the last two and a half years. Accused lives in front of the informant's house. It is alleged that victim is sixteen years old and was being harassed by the accused, who also extended life threats to her. Victim was also threatend not to report the incident. On 24.10.2021 when he returned home the victim informed all such facts whereafter the informant made a protest to the father of the accused, who started misbehaving with the informant and bricks etc were thrown on their house. Police was called whereafter accused persons fled. It is stated that accused persons are influential persons and pressure was being exerted on the victim to marry the accused on the ground that a video has also been prepared. On such allegations Case Crime No. 421 of 2021 was registered under Sections 354, 323, 336, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. whereafter Sections 354,336 IPC read with Section 7/8 POCSO Act was deleted and Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act was added. Court took cognizance of the matter and also framed charges under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The accused persons denied the accusations and demanded trial.

3. In addition to various documentary evidence which would be referred to later the prosecution has produced the informant as PW-1; victim as PW-2. PW3 is Smt. Nisha, who is the mother of the victim. PW-4 and PW-5 are doctors, who have medically examined the victim and have determined her age etc. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. Principal of Dau Dayal Girls Inter College, Firozabad has also been produced as PW-7 for proving the minority of the victim.

4. The evidence has been examined by the court of Sessions on various aspects. First and foremost the aspect of minority has been examined. In the medical examination the victim has been found to be eighteen years of age. On behalf of the prosecution a transfer certificate has been produced from the institution where the victim was admitted for the first time in class eight. The basis of recording date of birth in the previous institution or the municipal records relating to date of birth etc. have not been produced. What was the material on the basis of which the age was recorded initially at the time of admission to class one has not been produced. Merely on the strength of transfer certificate and scholars register the court below has refused to determine the age of the victim as sixteen years. On this aspect of the matter we find that the view taken by the court of Sessions is in conformity with the laws laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Yuva Prakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC Online SC 846 and we find that no error in the view so taken by the court below.

5. The next aspect which has been examined by the court of Sessions is medical examination report in which no injuries of any kind have been found on the victim. Slides were prepared from the victim and in the pathological report no spermatozoa etc has been found. The victim was also not found to be carrying any pregnancy etc. The doctor on the basis of medical examination and pathological report has declined to express any definite opinion with regard to commissioning of rape upon the victim.

6. The oral testimony of the victim has been carefully examined by the court of Sessions. PW-2 (victim) in her statement has state