Prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in victim's testimony and lack of corroboration led to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing for the State-respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. Special 14 of 2018 (POCSO) whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation, and further convicted under Section 448 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 (six) months.

3. The facts of the case, as projected by the learned Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, are as under:

'The prosecution case in short is that on 05.10.2018 one Smt. Chinu Sarkar, W/o Sri Maran Sarkar of Gakulpur, P.S. R.K. Pur, lodged a written complaint with the O/C, Women P.S. Udaipur alleging that on 01.10.2018, Monday, at about 11 a.m. in absence of the complainant and her husband in the house, the accused Ripan Sharma entered into their house and pounced on their minor daughter 'R' aged 16 years (name withheld). The accused forcefully imposed himself on 'R' and touched her breast and belly. Due to the offending acts of the accused, 'R' raised hue and cry and hearing her hue and cry when the neighbouring people came to the spot the accused fled away. It is stated that on this issue, a panchayet meeting was convened where the accused stated that he will defame the daughter of the complainant more badly'.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 2018WRP047 dated 05.10.2018 under sections 447/354 IPC was registered and entrusted the case to the Investigating Officer. During investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the victim girl and her mother alongwith other local people. The Judicial Magistrate also recorded the statements of the victim girl as well as the complainant under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., which were arranged by the I.O. Having satisfied with the process of investigation and being found prima facie case against the convict, the I.O. had submitted the charge-sheet.

5. On commencement of trial, the learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused-appellant (here-in-after referred to as the accused) under Sections 447 /354 IPC and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 8 witnesses and upon closure of the prosecution evidences, the accused was examined under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. by putting out the incriminating evidences against him but, the accused denied the veracity of all the prosecution evidences and expressed his willingness to adduce defence evidence. In support of his defence, the accused examined total six DWs including himself.

7. Thereafter, having heard argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Special Judge had recorded the findings of guilt against the accused and convicted and sentenced him as aforestated. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2019, the accused has preferred the instant appeal before this court.

8. Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has submitted that the victim i.e. the daughter of the complainant is not at all trustworthy and totally unreliable. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has tried to persuade this court by inviting attention to the statements of the victim girl recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. Le