The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; DNA evidence alone is insufficient if key witnesses turn hostile and procedural safeguards for evidence collection are not met.

Virender Singh, Judge

Appellant Mukesh Kumar has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 18.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’).

2. By way of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to hereinabove, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 376 IPC and imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The learned trial Court has also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Brief facts, leadings to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:-

On 25.02.2015, the child victim along-with her parents appeared before the police and moved an application disclosing therein that she is undergoing training of Computer Application, in multimedia institution, situated near school at place ‘X’. On 23.02.2015, according to her version, as contained in the application, as usual, she was on her way to the institute. Since she was late, as such, she could not board the bus and was on the way to the institute on foot. In the meanwhile, accused, who is previously known to child victim, met her and offered her to give lift. Firstly, child victim has shown her reluctance but, later on, she took lift from the accused. The accused, instead of moving straightaway towards the institute allegedly took her to a hotel, on the pretext of having some refreshment. The accused took her to a hotel at Barmana, where, the accused had offered a drink to her. On the next day, at about 6.00 a.m. when, the child victim regained her consciousness, then, she found herself and the accused, in an objectionable condition. According to her, the said room was in fact, at control gate Sundernagar. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused, the child victim had worn her clothes. At about 7.15 a.m. the uncle of the child victim found her and thereafter, the child victim had gone to her house. On 24.02.2015, on the repeated insistence of her parents, the child victim had narrated the entire incident to them.

4. On the basis of above facts, the child victim had prayed to the police to take action against the accused.

5. Upon this, the police machinery swung into motion and the FIR under Sections 363, 328, 376 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been registered.

6. The child victim was medico legally examined at Civil Hospital and the physical evidence was collected and preserved by the doctor.

7. The accused was arrested on 25.02.2015 at