The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony can lead to acquittal in sexual offence cases.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-This appeal is by the State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 25.7.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, in Special Session Trial No. 207 of 2017 (State v. Geetam), Special Session Trial No. 988 of 2017 (State v. Manakchand) and Special Session Trial No. 662 of 2018 (State v. Raghuraj), arising out of Case Crime No. 445 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Jarifnagar, District Budaun.

2. The informant in the present case is the father of the 13 year old victim, who has lodged a report on 25.9.2016, stating that on the previous day, i.e., 24.9.2016 at about 04:00 p.m., the victim had gone to cut fodder for the cattle in the field, but when she did not return he became suspicious and came to know that Jugendra, Raghuraj, Manakchand and Geetam, on the threat of illegal fire-arms, have abducted his daughter. The F.I.R. consequently came to be registered under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., and on conclusion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. The accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and demanded trial.

3. During the course of trial, Dr. Rashmi Deep, who had medically examined the victim, has been produced as P.W.2, whereas, Constable Pushpendra Kumar has been produced as P.W.1. The informant has appeared as P.W.3, while the victim has appeared as P.W.4. Other prosecution witnesses are police personnel, who are formal witnesses. The medical report as well as other documents including the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been produced by the prosecution and have been duly exhibited before the Court below.

4. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence led in the matter, has come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

5. We have heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the contrary view taken by the Court below is in the teeth of evidence on record.

7. We have perused the judgment of the Court below. It transpires that having examined the evidence on record the Court below has formulated four questions for determination in the present case.

8. The first issue is with regard to delay of 26 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. It has rightly been found to be of not much consequence, in as much as the family members usually try to search the victim on their own, and even otherwise, there is general reluctance in reporting instances of sexual offence on account of adverse impact on the reputation of the family members and the victim. On the aspect of minority of the victim the prosecution has alleged her to be 13 years old. The radiological report is on the record, wherein also the doctor has assessed the victim to be 13 years of age. The finding returned by the trial Court that the victim is minor, is, therefore, clearly borne out.

9. It is on the remaining two issues with regard to the commissioning of the offence on the specified date, time and place of occurrence, by the accused persons, that the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution case. The evidence led during trial in the present matter has been referred to by the trial Court and the same has been perused by us. The evidence clearly shows that there are no independent witness of the incident and the two persons, who allegedly had seen the incident, as per the informant, have been produced as defence witnesses, i.e., D.W.1-Bhurey and D.W.2-Omendra Singh, both of whom have not supported the prosecution case and have stated that there is enmity between the parties, on account of which a false case has been set up. We have also perused the