VICTIM X Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the victim being aggrieved of the judgment dtd. 16/10/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/18 th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.20/2023, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 Gannu @ Ganesh Namdev from the charges under Sec. 377 of I.P.C. and under Sec. 5(m) read with Sec. 6 and 5(L) read with 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/victim submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and the evidence available on record, as the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the consistent and trustworthy testimony of the victim child (PW-01), who clearly narrated the acts committed by the respondent No.2/accused. It is a settled principle that the testimony of the victim of a sexual offence, particularly a child victim, if found reliable, is sufficient to sustain conviction. The statements of the parents of the victim (PW-02 and PW-03) also corroborate the disclosure made by the victim and support the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court erred in placing undue reliance on the negative medical report, ignoring the settled position that absence of medical evidence is not fatal in cases of sexual offences, especially when the FIR is lodged after some delay which has been reasonably explained. The Court further erred in giving weight to defence witnesses while discarding credible prosecution evidence. Thus, the findings of the learned Trial Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside and the respondent No.2/accused be convicted in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/accused submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has passed a well-reasoned judgment acquitting the respondent No.2/accused. The prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. There is considerable delay in lodging the FIR and the medical examination of the victim does not support the allegations made by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has carefully considered the statements of all witnesses, including the defence witnesses, and has rightly found that the prosecution story is doubtful. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.