JUDGMENT

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

Leave granted.

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-accused, Mr. Anand Sharma, under Section 368 of IPC and under Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act"), the State of Uttarakhand has challenged the order dated 16.01.2021, passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge/ Special Judge POCSO, Haridwar.

2. In order to protect the identity of the victim, neither the name of the victim, nor the name of the complainant, her mother, is being revealed in the present judgment.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, the victim's mother (P.W.2) lodged a complaint before the Police Station Kotwali Nagar Haridwar, District Haridwar, wherein she claimed that on 12.01.2016, her eldest daughter, the victim, left the house without informing anyone at home. Ever since then, she is missing; her whereabouts are unknown. On the basis of this compliant, a missing report, namely Missing Report No.03 of 2016 was recorded.

4. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint against Santosh, co-accused in this case, claiming therein that her daughter had been recovered by the police from the possession of Santosh. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No.14 of 2016, for the offences under Sections 363, 366 (A) of IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Santosh for the offence under Sections 363, 366 (A), 376(2)(l)(n) of IPC, and for the offence under Section 5(1)/6 of the POCSO Act. The police also submitted a charge-sheet against the present respondent-accused, Mr. Anand Sharma, for the offences under Section 368 of IPC, and for the offence under Section 16/17 of POCSO Act.

5. Since Santosh was a juvenile, by order dated 14.11.2017, the trial of respondent-accused was separated, and the case of Santosh was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry.

6. In order to prove its case against the present respondent-accused, Mr. Anand Sharma, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, and submitted twelve exhibits before the learned Trial Court.

7. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused, Mr. Anand Sharma. Hence, the present Government Appeal before this Court.

8. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, has vehemently contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 368 of IPC, and for the offence under Section 16/17 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside.

9. Heard the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, and perused the impugned judgment.

10. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the victim (P.W. 1) has deposed before the learned Trial that “my Date of Birth is 06.03.2020. I have studied in the Government School at Devpura from Class I to Class V. I do not remember the name of the school. On 12.01.2016, at about 10:00 AM, I had gone to a shop. On the way, I met Anand and Santosh, both of whom are brother. Both of them asked me to go with them. However, I refused. They threatened me that in case I do not go with them, they will kill both of my brothers, and my entire family. Therefore, both of them took me to Dehradun. I would have shouted for help, but they had placed a chemical on my nose. Therefore, I became unconscious. They took to their brother's house in Dehradun. I had my phone with me. I would call, but they broke my SIM card. I told them that I wish to go back home, but they would not let me go. They kept me in a room. Santosh's sister-in-law forcefully made me wear some bangles. Once Santosh had physical relationship with me. When Santosh used to go outside, Anand used to stand as a guard. When Santosh came back, I told him that I would like to go