The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in sexual offences involving minors, and failure to establish a clear link in DNA evidence can lead to acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 7.2.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, Disrict-Raigad in Special POCSO Case No.15/2014. There were two accused. The present Appellant was the accused No.2. The accused No.1 was acquitted. The present Appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC; for which he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month. He was convicted under Section 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one month. He was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one month. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Shri Vivek Arote, learned counsel for the Appellant, Shri Prashant Jadhav, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Smt. Manisha Devkar, learned appointed counsel for the Respondent No.2.

3. The prosecution case is that the date of birth of the victim is 11.9.1997. Her parents had separated and the present Appellant, who was her maternal uncle, along with his wife had raised her. She was under the shelter of the present Appellant. The prosecution case is that in the year 2012, the victim was found to be pregnant. The school authorities informed the Appellant about her health issues. It was confirmed that she was pregnant. On questioning the victim, she told the police name of the accused No.1 – Chalke as the person responsible for her pregnancy.

Therefore, the FIR was lodged against him. The victim delivered her child on 22.4.2013. The blood samples of the victim, the child and the accused No.1 Chalke were collected and sent for DNA testing. It was revealed that the DNA of the accused No.1 Chalke did not match with the child’s blood sample and, therefore, again the investigation was continued to find the real culprit. In that context, the police suspected the victim’s two other maternal uncles and one more person as well as the present Appellant. Therefore, the police obtained blood samples of these four persons and sent them for DNA profile matching with the samples of the victim and her child. It was found after DNA profile matching that the present Appellant was the biological father of the child of the victim and, therefore, charge-sheet was filed against him as well. The case was tried against the accused No.1 and the present Appellant as the accused No.2.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses including the victim, the Appellant’s wife, the Headmaster of the victim’s school, the Medical Officers and the investigating officer. The victim had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial.

5. Learned trial Judge after considering all the aspects, acquitted the accused No.1 Chalke, but, convicted the Appellant based on the DNA report. He was convicted and sentenced as mentioned before.

6. The important evidence in this case is that of the victim herself, who is examined as PW-3. She has stated that the relations between her parents were not cordial. Her mother had performed second marriage. Therefore, she was residing with her maternal uncle and aunt. She did not depose anything further apart from this. She stated that she did not remember whether she was studying in her school which is named in her deposition. The Appellant was her maternal uncle. She did not remember anything about the accused No.1. She denied having lodged any complaint with the police but she admitted that the complaint had her signature.