JUDGMENT:

The State has preferred the present appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 366, 346 and 376 (2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec.5 (i)

r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/accused and perused the entire material on record.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that PW4/victim is daughter of PW1 and PW2, who is aged 14 years. According to PW1 and PW2, PW4 left the house around 3 P.M. on 18.9.2014 and did not return. They came to know that A1, who is a neighboring villager was following the victim girl and also expressed his love for her and A1 was also missing. The police having taken the complaint filed by the parents of the victim registered the case and commenced investigation.

4. The evidence which was brought on record by the prosecution is that the victim girl-PW4 was taken to Srisailam and from Srisailam to Pargi, at both the places according to PW4, A1 committed rape on her. The learned Session Judge having examined the victim girl-PW4 and other witnesses accuquited the accused on the following grounds.

i) Though it was alleged that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse, however the viginal swabs sent for FSL did not find any semen or spermatozoa.

ii) The prosecution has failed to identify the place either at Srisailam or Paragi where the Accused and PW4 stayed.

iii) The age of the victim girl-PW4 was not proved to be less than 18 years, since the victim herself stated that she was around 19 years.

iv) Though it was alleged that PW4 along with A1 and two others went on motor cycles, but only 1 motorcycle was seized and other motorcycle was not identified.

v) The police had not examined any witnesses at Srisailam where A1 and PW4 allegedly stayed in a room at Chamundeshwari Choultry.

5. The learned additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State argued that the evidence of victim girl-PW4 would suffice to infer that A1 had committed rape on her.

6. The learned Session Judge found that the entire version of PW4 regarding stay at Srisailam or at Paragi was false, since the said places were not identified and though Chamundeshwari Choultry was identified, witnesses at the said place were not examined. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove the age of the victim girl-PW4 to be less than 18 years to attract the offence under the POCSO Act. Medical evidence did not support the version of forceable commission of rape by A1.

7. In cases of acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another1, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is

1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

8. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

“70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when:

i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is p