IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Daya Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant-informant, Sri Jyoti Bhushan, learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Delay in filing the government appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. Application for condonation of delay stands allowed.

3. These appeals are by the informant as well as the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 26.5.2022, passed by the court below in Special Sessions Trial No.23 of 2014 (State Vs. Praveen Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.07 of 2014, under Sections 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh.

4. The informant in the present case has made a written report stating that he is a resident of Village Sukhpur Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh. He had returned on 20.1.2014 from his in-laws place at Jahanaganj in the evening. At about 9.00 PM when the victim (informant’s daughter) aged six years had gone to offer tea to the driver, the driver attempted rape on her. The daughter informed this fact to her mother. With these allegations the FIR came to be registered as Case Crime No.07 of 2014 under Section 376, 511 IPC. The statement of the victim was recorded on 31.1.2014 in which she has claimed that her father asked her to give tea to the driver. When the victim offered tea the accused asked her to kiss her and when she refused the accused started beating her. On her screaming victim’s father came and rescued her. The victim has been medically examined in which no external or internal injuries have been found on the victim. It has also come in the pathological report that no spermatozoa is seen in the vaginal slides. The hymen of the victim was also found intact. The age of the victim has been found to be seven years. It is thereafter that the charge-sheet was submitted in the matter and ultimately trial commenced when the accused denied the charges framed against him by the Court.

5. The informant has appeared as PW-1 and has supported the prosecution case. He has alleged that the accused was his driver for the last about one year. He has denied the suggestion that there was a dispute between him and the driver on account of non-payment of his salary. He has admitted that knowledge of this incident was received by him from is wife.

6. The victim has been produced as PW-2. She has although alleged that after she refused to accept the request of the accused to kiss her the accused gagged her mouth and thereafter started ‘intercourse’. The victim moreover stated that she does not understand meaning of word ‘intercourse’. She further stated that she said before the Court what was told to her by her father.

7. PW-3 and PW-4 are formal police witnesses and not much turn on their testimony.

8. PW-5 is Dr. Madhu Yadav, who had examined the victim. She has proved the medical report in which no spermatozoa was found on the vaginal smear of the victim and victim’s hymen was found fully intact. The doctor has opined that there was no signs of rape on the victim. No external or internal injuries are found on the victim.

9. The material produced in evidence, by the prosecution, were confronted to the accused, who stated that he has been falsely implicated.

10. Trial court on the basis of aforesaid evidence has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Challenging the judgement of acquittal, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA submits that as the victim is aged six years some inconsistencies in her version ought to be ignored. It is also argued that minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses are liable to be ignored, particulary when victim is a six year old girl. Learned counsel for the informant further argues that the judgment of acquittal, in such circumstances, ought not to be sustained.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant, however, subm