Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) APPELLANT -State has preferred this Leave to Appeal under Section 378 (iii) and (i) Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2014 passed by the learned Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sri Ganganagar. Learned Special Court, after considering the evidence tendered by the prosecution, has acquitted the accused respondent of the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(N) IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Child from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The facts, in brief, are that on 01.05.2014, complainant -Sarda Devi lodged FIR making allegation against accused Vinod @ Vikas that he abducted her daughter Pooja and has molested her. It is alleged in the FIR that Pooja is minor and as such, offences under Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were also attributed against the accused -respondent Vinod.
(2.) THE learned trial Court, framed charges against the accused -respondent for the aforesaid sections and when accused has not pleaded guilty, commenced the trial by recording statements of prosecution witnesses. To support its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses, namely P.W.1 prosecutrix -Pooja and P.W.2 complainant -Sarda. P.W.1 Pooja in her deposition before the Court has repudiated the entire prosecution story and has not attributed any role to the accused -respondent for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366and 376 IPC as well as Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it clearly and unequivocally reveals that both the witnesses have turned hostile and both of them have not supported the prosecution case to bring home guilt against the accused -respondent. Apart from these two witnesses, neither medical evidence was tendered by prosecution, nor any other supporting evidence was adduced. Therefore, in that background, learned Sessions Judge has recorded a categorical finding that prosecution has miserably failed to prove accusation beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused -respondent and consequently acquitted him from all the offences.
(3.) I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment.;