(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376–The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012–Section 4–Rape against a minor–Penetrative sexual assault–Delay in FIR–Non-matching of DNA profiling–
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor–The victim reported that the appellant, a local religious figure, committed the assault after sending her brother away–DNA profiling is not matching to the victim or the accused–Appeal against conviction–Held-As per Rule 12(3)(a)(ii) of Juvenile Justice, Rule 2007 and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the certificate from the school which was first attended by the victim has to be preferred to the birth certificate which falls within Rule 12 (iii)(a) of the Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007 or Section 94 (ii) of the JJ Act–In the absence of any evidence that a certificate from the school is not available, the reliance could not be placed upon the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Council–Further held–There was no corroboration to the testimony of the victim by the scientific evidence and the incident as narrated does not appear to be probable–The delay in sexual offences is usually not material; however, keeping in view of the circumstances of this case, the delay assumes significance–Trial Court has committed an error–Impugned order of conviction is set aside–Appeal allowed. (Paras 22, 23, 30 & 32)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376–The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 Section–4–Rape against a minor–Identity of the victim-discrepancy with respect to the name of the victim–The victim had filed an application (Ext.PW-1/A)-before the police in which she mentioned herself as 'A'-The birth certificate collected by the prosecution (Ext.PW8/B) is in the name of 'R'–The application (Ext.PW8/A) for collecting the victim’s birth certificate also mentions her name as 'A'–The victim had nowhere stated in her statement recorded on oath that she was also known as 'R'–Her mother (PW-2) stated that victim 'A' is her daughter–She nowhere mentioned that the victim was also known as 'R'–In the absence of any ante litem motam record of the fact that victim ‘A’ also known as ‘R’, post litem motam declaration made by her that she is also known as ‘R’ is not sufficient to connect her with the birth certificate placed on record. (Paras 14 and 15)