SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this application preferred under Section 378(iii) and (i) Cr.P.C., the State of Rajasthan seeks to challenge the judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (Sessions Judge), Rajsamand in S.C.S.T. Case No.05/2014 (C.I.S. No.47/2014) acquitted the respondent Sukhram of the charges under Sections 3(1)(xii), 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sections 363, 376 and 342 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
(2.) I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.
(3.) The accused respondent Sukhram was prosecuted with the allegation that he kidnapped Mst. 'V', 12 years old minor daughter of the first informant Prakash Nagrarchi on 19.11.2013 and then subjected her to rape. Prakash lodged a report against unknown persons for the kidnapping of his daughter at the Police Station Nathdwara on 23.11.2013 whereupon FIR No.461/2013 was registered for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C. The child was discovered on 22.12.2013 and was handed over to her parents. Upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she alleged that the respondent accused kidnapped her, confined her for period of one month and subjected her to sexual intercourse. She was subjected to medical examination and the medical jurist found that the girl was not having any kind of injuries on her genitals and even her hymen was intact. The medical officer gave specific opinion that there was no evidence suggestive of intercourse upon the victim. The respondent accused was arrested and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him for the offences under Sections 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sections 363, 376 and 342 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court framed charges against him for the above mentioned offences. He pleaded innocence and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses in support of its case. The victim was examined as PW- 4. In her evidence, she stated that her mother scolded her on which, she became annoyed and went to Yashoda Nandan Garden, Nathdwara. The accused respondent was standing there from before. He inquired from the victim as to why she was standing there upon which she told the accused that she desired to go to Amet at her maternal aunt's house till her mother cooled off. On this, the accused told the victim that he knew her aunt and would drop her at her aunt's house. She accompanied the accused on his motorcycle. The accused took her to Gawargudha Kapasan and locked her in a room. From there, the accused took her to Bhopal Sagar and locked her up in a room and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. About a month and 5 days later, the son of the accused called him and told that photographs of the victim were being published in the newspapers and police was looking out for her and that she should be sent back from where she was brought. The accused Sukhram, at that time, was in an intoxicated state. He gave Rs.100/- to the victim and told her to go away. She escaped from the room where she was kept confined since long. She reached the highway from where she boarded a government vehicle and went to Amet. After reaching Amet, she started cry because she did not know the location of her aunt's house. Seeing her crying, a passer-by called her aunt who took her back to Kelwa. In her cross-examination, she was confronted with her previous statement (Ex.D/1) recorded during investigation in which, she clearly admitted that nobody misbehaved with her nor was she subjected to sexual assault. She categorically admitted that the above statement given by her to police was correct. Considering the tenor of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical opinion given by the medical jurist Dr. Anjali Agarwal (PW- 11) wherein, the doctor clearly stated that no marks of recent sexual assault were noticeable either on the genitals or anywhere else on the victim's body, the trial court discarded the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 26.07.2016.;