While the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be ignored in its entirety, any testimony that is inherently inconsistent or wholly unreliable cannot serve as the sole foundation for a criminal conviction, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the 1^st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2017 (State vs. Prakash Pradhan), arising out of Case Crime No. 422 of 2017, Police Station Kotwali, District Jalaun at Orai, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default clause.

2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, as unfolded by the informant Nawab son of Gafoor Khan in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.') are that on April 26, 2017, at 12.30 p.m., he sent his eight years old daughter to the home of his acquaintance, Prakash Pradhan located in the same vicinity to call / summon him. Upon finding the girl inside his house, Prakash Pradhan grabbed her and sexually assaulted her. When the daughter returned home, she tearfully recounted the entire ordeal to both her mother and him. The girl also sustained bleeding from her private parts.

3. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-1), chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-4) was registered at Police Station concerned mentioning all the details as had been described in Ext. Ka-.3. G.D. entry was also made at the same time.

4. Investigation in the matter was initiated by S.H.O. Sanjay Gupta. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. ka-6). The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. Injured was medically examined and injury report Ext. ka-5 was prepared. Statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was also recorded, which is Ext. ka-2.

5. On medical examination of the victim, it was found that hymen was torn at 6' O clock position and perineum at 9' O clock position and slight bleeding in external urethral meatus was present at the time of examination.

6. In the opinion of the doctor, there were signs suggestive of recent forceful penetration of vagina.

7. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-7) against the accused appellant was submitted before the concerned Magistrate and he took the cognizance. The case being exclusively triable by session court, was committed to the Court of sessions.

8. Accused-appellant appeared and charges under Sections 376 (2)(i) of IPC and 5(m)/6 POCSO Act were framed. Accused had denied the charges framed against him and pleading not guilty claimed his trial.

9. Trial proceeded and in order to prove its case on behalf of prosecution, six witnesses, namely, PW-1, Nawab Khan (informant), PW-2 victim girl, PW-3 Mahila Constable Munna Devi, PW-4 Dr. Kavita Kori, PW-5 S.H.O. Sanjay Gupta, Investigating Officer and PW-6 Dr. Ravi Prakash Rathore, Principal, were examined.

10. In documentary evidence, written report Ex.ka.-1, statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC Ext. ka-2, G.D. entry Ext. ka-3, chick FIR Ext. ka-4, injury report Ext. ka-5, site plan Ext. ka-6 , charge sheet Ext. ka-7, entry of S.R. Register as Ext. ka-8 and original admission form of the victim as Ext. ka-9 respectively have been proved.

11. After closure of prosecution evidence the incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed the entire prosecution evidence