The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or unsupported by evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Budhwar, J.

1. Impugned in the present proceedings by way of Government Appeal No. 728 of 2024 at the instance of State of U.P. and Appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. No. 1070 of 2022 preferred by Sher Ali (informant) is the judgment and order dated 26.03.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad in Session Trials No. 234 of 2018 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sajid) arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of 2018 under Section 364, 376(3), 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad acquitting the accused respondents.

Facts

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.05.2018, Sher Ali (P.W. 1), lodged a first information report in the Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad alleging that his daughter (victim) aged about 12 years had gone out of the house at about 7:00 P.M. on 22.05.2018 whereafter she went missing. Despite constant efforts her whereabouts were not known, constraining Sher Ali (P.W. 1) to lodge first information report being Case Crime No. 196 of 2018 under Section 363 I.P.C. Post lodging of the first information report, Amar Pal Singh, Sub Inspector was appointed as the Investigating Officer on 25.05.2018. The statement of Sher Ali (P.W. 1) was taken on 06.07.2018 and he deposed that the whereabouts of the victim remained untraced since 22.05.2018 and P.W. 2 Muddashir, P.W. 3 Junaid along with Yunus and Rashid had seen the victim along with accused Sajid. Thereafter, on 09.07.2018 after disclosure of the said fact, the police officials raided the house of the accused Sajid. On 15.07.2018 on the basis of tip of an informer the accused Sajid was arrested and taken into police custody and after interrogation a confessional statement was made by accused Sajid that he had abducted the victim on 22.05.2018 at about 7-7:30 in the evening and since the victim who was a minor girl was demanding 5/10 rupees from the accused Sajid so the accused Sajid assured her to tender 5/10 rupees demanded by the victim and thereafter took her near the drain and proceeded to abduct her and outraged her modesty and after strangulating, she was done to death. On the basis of the confessional statement and on the pointing out of the accused Sajid, the police proceeded towards the place of incident while walking on the chak road and after proceeding ahead 8-10 steps, the skeleton (skull and bones) of the deceased was found along with the clothes, slippers, ponytail (hair) which was scattered therein. It is also alleged that inquest was prepared at the site and the body was sealed and thereafter in order to ascertain as to whether the skeleton was of the deceased victim or not, the residue of the dead body was sent to Forensic Laboratory. It is further claimed that for the sake of accuracy DNA test was also performed. Since Amar Pal Singh Sub Inspector (P.W. 5), the first Investigating Officer stood transferred, thus, in his place the second Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) Sub Inspector Surendra Pal Singh was appointed to undertake the task of investigation, thereafter P.W. 7 Sub Inspector Gynandra Bodh was appointed as Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet in Case Crime No. 196 of 2018 against the accused Sajid accused-respondent under Section 364, 376, 302, 201 I.P.C. read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses namely Sher Ali, informant (P.W. 1), P.W. 2, Muddashir and P.W. 3, Junaid (witness of facts). P.W. 4, Dr. Vikrant who conducted the post mortem, P.W. 5, Sub Inspector Amar Pal Singh, first Investigating Officer, P.W. 6, Sub Inspector Surendra Pal Singh, second Investigating Officer, P.W. 7, Gynandra Bodh, third Investigating Officer who submitted the charge sheet and P.W. 8 who proved the chik F.I.R. After prosecution evidence was closed the Trial Court recorded the stateme