The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of witness credibility, and the benefit of inconsistency in witness statements in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT : – The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (in short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment dated 29-11-2016 passed by the Court of 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M. P.) in S.T. No. 263/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 7/8 and 11/12 of (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Act (in short “POCSO Act 2012”) and sections 452, 354, and 354-A(1)(i), (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, RI for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/- and further R.I. For 03 months with fine of 500/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution story, in brief is that :

(i) Complainant and appellant both were neighbours and family friends. On 16-7-2014, at about 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. when, complainant and his wife had gone outside for purchasing grocery and his minor daughter prosecutrix aged about 16 years was all alone at home, appellant came there asking about her father. He caught hold of her hand saying she is very beautiful having good height. He thereafter, forcefully caught hold her, took her towards sofa and got her seated in his lap and sexually assaulted her. When, complainant and his wife returned back, prosecutrix narrated the incident to them. Thereafter, complainant went to appellant’s house and talked to him about the incident. Initially, appellant denied the incident, but later on he apologized due to which complainant did not report the matter to the police. After some time appellant again started chasing and staring complainant’s daughter and on 27-4-2015 at about 6:15 p.m., when complainant’s wife and daughter went for a walk in the garden, appellant’s wife, son and daughter came there and started hurling filthy abuses and pelted stones on them and threatened them of dire consequences.

(ii) On the next day i.e. 28-4-2015, complainant along with his wife made a written complaint to the SHO, P.S. Rajendra Nagar Indore, on the basis of which on 29-4-2015, S. I. Anoop Yadav lodged FIR (Ex. P-5) bearing Crime No. 463/2015 at P.S. Rajendra Nagar Indore against the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 354, 354-D, 294, 323, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012. During investigation he went to the spot, prepared spot map (Ex. P-1), obtained birth certificate (Ex. P-7) of the prosecutrix as proof of her age, recorded statements of prosecution witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the appellant’s son and daughter before the Juvenile Justice Board Indore, while against the appellant and his wife before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore who committed their case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Indore.

3. Learned trial Court considering the material prima facie available on record, framed the charges against the appellant under sections 452, 354, 354-A(1)(i), (ii) of Indian Penal Code and sections 7/8 and 11/12 of POCSO Act 2012, while discharged the appellant’s wife as allegations alleged against her were not triable by the sessions Court. The appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. In his statement recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant pleaded his false implication in the matter.

4. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, recorded the findings that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 7/8 and 11/12 of POCSO Act and sections 452, 354, and 354-A(1)(i), (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, vide judgment dated 29-11-2016 convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

5. Being aggrieved with the said judgment