STATE Vs. PRITAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant/appellant and Shri Vibhav Amonkar, learned Advocate for the respondent.

(2.) The State aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Children's Court is seeking its reversal in appeal challenging such judgment and consequentially a conviction of the respondent/original accused. The parties for the sake of brevity shall hereinafter be referred to as the State and the accused.

(3.) Heard Shri P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State who contended that the victim was an 11 year old girl at the time of the alleged incident of rape on her by her own father in the hotel premises under their occupation. There was a delay of 8 days in lodging the complaint but which had been unfortunately held against the State by the learned Children's Court on the specious premise that the complainant was otherwise a knowledgeable person who did not hesitate to lodge complaints against the accused, her own husband at least on two earlier occasions without any delay and that her conduct to lodge the complaint belatedly when such a heinous crime had been committed was neither understandable nor justifiable. He adverted to the evidence on record and further contended that the Children's Court was in error in disbelieving the medical evidence on record which clearly established the case of rape against the minor victim and yet the Children's Court departed from the said evidence and disbelieved the case of the prosecution against the accused. It was his further contention that there was undue emphasis by the learned Children's Court on minor discrepancies which did not go to the root of the prosecution case and to record a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The Children's Court also disbelieved the version of the complainant on the position of the bed and her position when she had purportedly seen the accused committing the said act of grave sexual violence on her own minor daughter merely on the premise that the panchanama did not substantiate her version of the location of the bed which would belie her version that she could have seen the accused committing the crime on his minor daughter.