The court upheld acquittal as the victim and critical witnesses turned hostile, undermining the prosecution's case due to lack of incriminating evidence.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)

1. Challenging the judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed in Special Case (POCSO) No.41 of 2024, on the file of learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Mehsana, whereby the second respondent, who is the sole accused in the case, was acquitted of the charges under Sections 354 (A), 376 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (herein after referred to as “POCSO Act”), present appeal is preferred by the guardian of the victim.

2. Outline facts of the prosecution case may be stated as follows:-

2.1 The victim was a minor girl at the time of alleged offence aged about 17 years, 1 month and 16 days. Her parents are labourers and they are eking out their livelihood by doing labour work. On 25.5.2024, the parents of the victim went out to attend their labour work. When she was alone in the house she went to nearby field to answer the calls of nature. At that time, at about 9.30 a.m. in the morning, when she was at the field, it is stated that the accused forcibly took her to another nearby field and had forcible sexual intercourse on her against her will and thereby committed rape on her. The victim returned to the house and informed about the incident to her grandmother. Thereafter, her father, who is examined as PW-1 lodged a report with police relating to the said incident. The said report was registered as a case under Sections 354 (A), 376 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The case was investigated. The police have referred the victim girl for medical examination. Initially, she was examined by PW-4, who is a doctor. PW-4 found no external or internal injuries on the body of the victim girl. Therefore, she has referred the victim girl for examination by a gynecologist. PW-5, who is a gynecologist, examined her. He also did not find any external or internal injuries either on her body or on her private part. She opined that possibility of the victim having recent sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. Medical certificate to that effect was issued both by PW-4 and PW-5. The accused was arrested during the course of investigation. The investigation officer has also examined the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators and the clothes of both the victim girl and the accused were seized by the investigation officer in the presence of the mediators during the course of the investigation. They were sent for examination by the analyst to the Forensic Science Laboratory but the report of Forensic Science Laboratory is not produced by the investigation officer before the Court and the analyst is also not examined. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2.2 In the trial Court, after the accused made his appearance, charges under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 354 (A), 376 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code were framed against him. The charges were explained to the accused and he denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

2.3 During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PW- 1 to PW-6 witnesses and got marked 30 exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.

2.4 At the culmination of trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for any of the charges that are framed against him an