CHINTU RAMESH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals are under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as "Cr.P.C." for short) against the judgment and order dtd. 01/03/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special (POCSO) Case No.60 of 2017, convicting and sentencing the Appellants as follows :-:-

(2.) The prosecution's case, as revealed from the police report, is as under:-

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Advocates for the Appellants that, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the Appellants for the offence punishable under the POCSO. Though the incident was dtd. 30/12/2016, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 23/1/2017 and there was delay in reporting the incident to the Police. When the Victim was present with her mother, the Victim's statement was not recorded immediately. The eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, did not support the case of prosecution. The medical evidence do not support the prosecution's case. The Victim did not inform the Police, who were present at the 'Beti Bachao' programme at the School. Even the teacher who learnt about the incident on 18/1/2017, did not bother to inform the Police. The other teacher Mrs. Musale was not examined. Had there been no 'Beti Bachao' programme in the school, nothing would have come up. There are material lapses in the prosecution's case. Though, the Victim deposed that, her head was banged against the wall, there was no supporting medical evidence. Initially, the Crime was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 354 of the IPC. The Chemical Analysis (CA) reports were inconclusive. The learned Trial Court relied on the evidence of the witnesses, who did not support the prosecution's case. The prosecution's case was speculative. The conviction and sentence be set aside and the Appellants be acquitted. The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) along with other connected matter reported in (2012)8 SCC 21 on the point of sterling witness.