JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Special Court Una, in SCST Case No. 6-VII/2013 decided on 07.01.2015, vide which, learned Court below while convicting the respondent/accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code, has acquitted him for commission of offences punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Sections 366, 376(2), 506(I) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (v) of SCST Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 18.10.2013, victim (PW-1), whose age was 14 years, lodged a complaint Ext. PW1/A at Police Station, Haroli, in which it was mentioned that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community and was a student of 9th class in Government G.S.S.S. Bathu, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. As per the victim, accused Ajay Kumar used to harass her on her way to School. According to the prosecutrix, on 24.07.2013, at around 1:00 p.m., when she was going to her house from the Bazaar, accused took her to the upper storey of a sweet shop under threat and he raped her. She raised hue and cry, but accused gave her beatings and threatened that in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, then he would kill her and her brother as well as her father. She further stated that accused had clicked one photograph of her. Further, as per the victim, whenever she went to the school, the accused used to make her sit with him and he used to physically abuse her. On 03.10.2013, accused came to her house and when he found her alone in the house, he took her to the same room at Tahliwal and raped her twice and threatened her that she would have to come whenever he call her, otherwise he would show her photograph as well as recordings to the boys. It was further the case of the victim that the accused used to threaten her by proclaiming that she being Harijan by caste, cannot cause any harm to him. Further, according to the victim, on 15.10.2013 at around 4.00 P.M., when she and her sister were alone at their house, accused alongwith one boy, namely, Sham Lal came there and threatened her, upon which she and her sister raised alarm. On this, public gathered there. Further, according to the victim, on 15.10.2013 at around 4.00 P.M., when she and her sister were alone at their house, accused alongwith one boy, namely, Sham Lal came there and threatened her, upon which she and her sister raised alarm. On this, public gathered there. However, in the meanwhile Sham Lal fled away, whereas accused was apprehended by the villagers. She also reported to the police that she apprehended danger to her life from the accused as the accused had threatened her and blackmailed her on the phone. Victim had narrated all these facts to her mother and she had gone to Police Station alongwith her parents and Pradhan Kanwar Krishan Rana. Further, as per the prosecution on the basis of the said complaint FIR Ext. PW18/A was registered at Police Station Haroli and victim was got medically examined. Investigation was carried out and accused was arrested and was also got medically examined. Statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. before learned JMIC(1), Una. The mobile phone as well as motorcycle was also taken in possession. Investigation revealed that the accused had destroyed the recordings of the voice of the victim. Birth certificate of the victim Ext. PW9/A demonstrates that her date of birth was 22.06.2000. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, accordingly, he was charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act and Sections 366, 376(2), 506(I) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of SCST Act , to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence produced on record by the prosecution, convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code. However, insofar as the remaining charges framed against the accused were concerned, learned trial Court concluded that the guilt of the accused was not proved for commission of offences punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Sections 366, 376(2), 506(I) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of SCST Act. Accordingly, learned trial Court acquitted the accused as far as the commission of said offences was concerned. 5. Accordingly, learned trial Court acquitted the accused as far as the commission of said offences was concerned. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Sections 366, 376(2), 506(I) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of SCST Act, State has filed this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgment passed by learned trial Court. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses. 8. We will refer to the statements of relevant witnesses in order to examine as to whether the findings of acquittal returned by learned trial Court in favour of the accused are borne out from the records or the same are perverse. 9. Prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW-1 and she deposed that her date of birth was 22.06.2000 and on 8th April, 2013, she had taken admission in 9th class in G.S.S. School, Bathu. This witness further deposed that the accused used to meet her on her way to the School. She further stated that the accused compelled her to have friendship with him and on 24.07.2013, while she was returning from Gurplah Bazaar at around 1:00 p.m., he asked her to accompany him and threatened her that in case she does not accompany him, then he will kill her father and brother. She further deposed that she accompanied the accused to Tahliwal on motorcycle, where accused took her to a sweet shop and thereafter raped her. Prosecutrix further deposed that accused gave her beatings and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. She further stated that on 03.10.2013 also, while she was alone in her house, accused came there and under threats, she again accompanied him to the same shop, where the accused again raped her. She also stated that accused had gifted her a cell phone and she used to talk with the accused on the said cell phone, which was later on taken back from her by the accused. Prosecutrix further deposed that on 15.10.2013 at about 4 p.m., accused came with a friend Sham Lal to her house, when her parents were working in the field and she was alone in her house with her elder sister Nisha Devi. Prosecutrix further deposed that on 15.10.2013 at about 4 p.m., accused came with a friend Sham Lal to her house, when her parents were working in the field and she was alone in her house with her elder sister Nisha Devi. She further deposed that the accused started molesting her, whereas Sham Lal started fondling her sister. She further deposed that she and her sister raised hue and cry, on which villagers gathered on the spot. Though friend of the accused absconded from the spot, however, accused was caught by the villagers and thereafter her parents also came to the house. She further stated that the accused was let off in the evening by the villagers. She further stated that on 18.10.2013, she narrated the entire incident to her mother and she did not disclose it earlier out of fear of the accused. She further stated that her mother disclosed the said incident on the same day to her father and thereafter her parents and Ex-Pradhan took her and her sister to Police Station, Haroli, where she scribed an application, which was handed over to the SHO concerned. In her cross-exaination, she was confronted with her application Ex. PW1/A, wherein it was not mentioned by her that the accused had given her a cell phone. She was also confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/C, wherein it was not mentioned that on 24.07.2013, Gorkha had taken her on a bike to Tahliwal. She was again confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/C, in neither of which it was mentioned that on 15.10.2013, accused Gorkha had teased her. She admitted it to be correct that on 15.10.2013, Ex-Pradhan K.K. Rana and many other villagers had gathered at their house. She stated that her grand father was also present there. She admitted it to be correct that police reached their house and had directed both the parties to come to the Police Station on 16.10.2013. She further deposed that they did not go to the Police Station on 16.10.2013 and that police again visited their house on 16.10.2013 and 17.10.2013. She admitted it to be correct that she had not disclosed about the incident of accused having committed bad act with her to the police up to 17.10.2013. She stated that she had got recorded in Ex. PW1/C that she had told her mother about the incident on 18.10.2013. She admitted it to be correct that she had not disclosed about the incident of accused having committed bad act with her to the police up to 17.10.2013. She stated that she had got recorded in Ex. PW1/C that she had told her mother about the incident on 18.10.2013. She was again confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/C, wherein it was not so recorded. She also admitted it to be correct that before 18.10.2013, she had not disclosed the incident to anyone including her sister Nisha Devi. She also admitted it to be correct that before reaching Police Station on 18.10.2013, they had not disclosed anything regarding the bad act to K.K. Rana. She further stated in her cross-examination that averments made qua Raj in Ex. PW1/A were wrongly written by her and she denied the suggestion she had friendship with Raj Kumar and at the instance of her father and K.K., she had let off Raj Kumar and substituted the accused. In her crossexamination, she further admitted it to be correct that she had not disclosed the alleged incidents on 24th July and 3rd October, 2013 to her mother, as was recorded in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate. 10. Mother of the prosecutrix Nirmla Devi entered the witness box as PW-2 and she deposed that on 15.10.2013, she and her husband were working in the fields and her daughters were at the house. Neighbours raised hue and cry and when they reached their house, one Sham Lal ran away when he saw them but accused Ajay alias Gorkha remained in house. She further deposed that accused told her that accused told her that he was having relations with her daughter. She further stated that on 18.10.2013, prosecutrix told her that in the month of July, Gorakha had taken her to a shop in Tahliwal and committed wrong act with her. She also stated that prosecutrix told her that accused did wrong act with her at the same place even in the month of October. She further stated that she narrated these facts to her husband and thereafter they went to Pradhan K.K. Thereafter, her daughters were taken to Police Station, Haroli and they lodged the complaints. She also stated that prosecutrix told her that accused did wrong act with her at the same place even in the month of October. She further stated that she narrated these facts to her husband and thereafter they went to Pradhan K.K. Thereafter, her daughters were taken to Police Station, Haroli and they lodged the complaints. In her cross-examination, she stated that on 15.10.2013, K.K. and Kukki Pradhan had come to their house in the evening and she admitted it to be correct that police officials from Police Post Bathri had also come to their house. She also deposed that her daughters had attended their schools normally till October, 2013. She also admitted it to be correct that till 15th October, no such incident was narrated to her by her daughters nor she had lodged any complaint either to the Police or Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. She denied the suggestion that her husband and his companions were thrashed by the accused alongwith Sham Lal and other persons. 11. Father of the prosecutrix, Surjit Singh entered the witness box as PW-3 and he stated that on 15.10.2013 he alongwith his wife were in the fields and at around 04.15 P.M., they heard some noise from their house and they found accused Sham Lal and Gorakh in their house and thereafter accused Sham Lal ran away. He also stated that there was a motorcycle parked outside his house. He also stated that on inquiry, it was revealed that accused Gorakh was known to his daughters. He further stated that his daughters Nisha and Meena did not disclose to him anything on that day. He further deposed that on 18.10.2013, Meena divulged about the bad act committed with her by Gorakh. He further stated that then he went to K.K. Rana Ex-Pradhan and thereafter to Haroli Police Station alongwith his daughters. In his cross-examination, he deposed that only 2- 3 persons of his village had gathered at his house before they reached there from the field. He further stated that no police official had visited their house on 15th. He admitted it to be correct that K.K. Rana, Kukku Pradhan and 5-7 persons of their village had come to their house on that day. He stated that Sham Lal had run away in his presence. He also deposed that after making certain inquiries and calling the police, they let off Gorakh. He admitted it to be correct that K.K. Rana, Kukku Pradhan and 5-7 persons of their village had come to their house on that day. He stated that Sham Lal had run away in his presence. He also deposed that after making certain inquiries and calling the police, they let off Gorakh. He further stated that the police and villagers remained at the house for about 20 minutes. He also stated that accused Sham Lal was running a clinic in their village. He also admitted it to be correct that police visited their house on 16.10.2013 and 17.10.2013 and that no complaint was made to the police during those days. He also admitted it to be correct that whatever he was deposing was on the basis of information disclosed to him by his wife and he had not verified the facts from his daughter Nisha. 12. Kanwar Krishan Rana entered the witness box as PW-6 and he deposed that on 18.10.2013, Surjit Singh came to his house and told him that accused Sham Lal had committed rape with his daughter Meena after threatening her. He further deposed that thereafter he alongwith Surjit Singh and his wife and their daughters went to Police Station Haroli, where daughters of Surjit Singh lodged complaint with the police. In his cross-examination, he admitted it to be correct that on 15.10.2013, he went to the house of Surjit where members and Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bathu were already there. He also stated that police was called on that day by the Pradhan. He admitted it to be correct that after making inquiries from Ajay Kumar alias Gorakh, he was let off by the police. He also admitted it to be correct that from 15th to 18th October he had no talk with Meena regarding the incident. 13. Shri Avtar Chand entered the witness box as PW- 7 and he stated that he was running a sweet shop at Tahliwal. However, he denied that accused had ever visited his shop alongwith any girl. He was declared as a hostile witness. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that accused Gorakh had come to his shop with a girl on 3-4 occasions. He also denied that police had come to the shop on 19.10.2013 and that the victim had identified the room of upper storey of the shop. He was declared as a hostile witness. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that accused Gorakh had come to his shop with a girl on 3-4 occasions. He also denied that police had come to the shop on 19.10.2013 and that the victim had identified the room of upper storey of the shop. He stated that accused was his co-villager and belonged to his caste, but he also stated that the accused was not related to him. 14. PW-8 Rajinder Singh deposed that on 15.10.2013, he heard some noise at around 04.00 P.M. coming from the house of Surjit Singh. When he went there, he found accused Gorakh present in the house and Sham Lal ran away in his presence. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Surjit and his wife were at their house when he went there. He admitted it to be correct that K.K. Rana, Kukki and his wife had also reached at the spot and Gorakh was let off after verifying the facts by Surjit Singh and police. 15. Even without referring to the other prosecution witnesses, the testimonies of the above stated six witnesses raise a few pertinent questions which the prosecution has not been able to answer. There are glaring inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix PW-1 and her mother PW-2 about the occurrence of the alleged incident which have not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Whereas, PW-1 has deposed in the Court that on 15.10.2013, accused had come to her house at 04.00 P.M. with Sham Lal and had started teasing her and molested her and thereafter when she and her sister started crying and raised hue and cry, people assembled on the spot and Sham Lal absconded, whereas Gorakh was nabbed, however, when we peruse the testimony of PW-2, she has deposed in the Court that when on hearing certain noise in their house, she and her husband rushed to their house from the field and when Sham Lal saw them, he ran away, however, accused Gorakha stayed in their house itself. This contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother has not been satisfactorily explained by the State. This contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother has not been satisfactorily explained by the State. In fact, in our considered view, this contradiction creates a grave suspicion on the veracity of the case of the prosecution per se especially keeping in view the fact that it has categorically come in the testimony of the prosecutrix that before 15.10.2013, she had not disclosed the factum of her being allegedly sexually abused by the accused to her mother. Besides this, despite the fact that the alleged incident took place on 15.10.2013, there is no cogent explanation given by the prosecution as to why no complaint was lodged with the police from 15.10.2013 to 18.10.2013. It is also a matter of record that Gorakh who was apprehended at the spot was let off by the father of the prosecutrix after making some inquiries. It has also come on record that on 15th itself police had visited the house of the prosecutrix and left after 15-20 minutes. It is also a matter of record as is evident from the statement of PW-3 Surjit Singh that the police had visited their house on 16.10.2013 as well as on 17.10.2013. PW-2 and PW-3 have admitted that no complaints were lodged between 15.10.2013 to 18.10.2013. Why was accused Gorakh let off by the father of the prosecutrix on 15.10.2013, has not been cogently explained by the prosecution. Why no complaint was lodged between 15.10.2013 to 18.10.2013 despite the police having visited the house of the prosecutrix on 15.10.2013 as well as 16.10.2013 and 17.10.2013, has also not been cogently explained by the prosecution. Why Nisha, sister of the prosecutrix has not been examined, has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix. Why the prosecutrix has given a contrary version in Court as compared to her mother, has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted by the accused initially in the month of July, 2013 and thereafter in the month of October, 2013, but the said incidents were not disclosed by her allegedly because of trauma. 16. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted by the accused initially in the month of July, 2013 and thereafter in the month of October, 2013, but the said incidents were not disclosed by her allegedly because of trauma. 16. In our considered view, trauma and threats are to be gathered from the facts of the case and prosecution has not been able to demonstrate as to what was the trauma that the proseuctrix was suffering in her house, which prevented her from disclosing all these facts to her mother because it is not the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was not putting up her with her parents either in the either in the month of July, 2013 or October, 2013. The case of the accused teasing the prosecutrix is also falsified from the fact that the alleged incident of teasing is not so recorded in Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/C. This demonstrates that the prosecutrix has made improvements in her statement. Cross-examination of the prosecutrix further demonstrates that there are lot of contradictions in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her statement recorded as PW-1. Besides this, there are major contradictions in the statements of the mother and father of the prosecutrix also. PW-2 mother of the prosecutrix has stated that K.K. and Kukki Pradhan had not come to their house on the evening of 15.06.2013, whereas PW-3 father of the prosecutrix has deposed that they had come to their house on the evening of 15.06.2013. PW-2 has admitted the suggestion that police officials from Bathri Police Post had come to their house on 15.06.2013, whereas PW-3 has stated that no police had come to their house on 15.06.2013. However, PW-3 in the same breath thereafter stated that one accused Gorakh was let off after sometime after certain inquiries were made and police was called. These are also major contradictions in the testimonies of material prosecution witnesses which contradictions have not been satisfactorily explained by the State. 17. Therefore, in our considered view, the acused cannot be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the basis of the said uncogent, unreliable and untrustworthy evidence led by the prosecution. 17. Therefore, in our considered view, the acused cannot be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the basis of the said uncogent, unreliable and untrustworthy evidence led by the prosecution. Learned trial Court has in detail gone into all these aspects of the matter and thereafter has concluded that the prosecution as not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In our considered view, the findings so returned by learned trial Court are duly borne out from the records of the case and the same do not call for any interference. 18. Similarly, the findings returned by learned trial Court while acquitted the accused for commission of offence under Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, also do not warrant any interference as the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate commission of said offence by the accused and learned trial Court after appreciating the material placed on record by the prosecution has rightly acquitted the accused for commission of offence under Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 19. In our considered view, the testimony of prosecutrix as well as that of her mother and father do not inspire confidence. These statements are not trustworthy so as to be made the basis to convict the accused. No material is available on record from which it can be inferred that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 20. Besides this, a perusal of the judgment of learned trial Court demonstrates that the view formed by it on the basis of the material on record is a possible and plausible view. It cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by learned trial Court is either not borne out from the records of the same or the same is perverse. Learned trial Court has discussed the entire evidence on record and after a minute scrutiny of the same, it has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. In our considered view also, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused. Learned trial Court has discussed the entire evidence on record and after a minute scrutiny of the same, it has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. In our considered view also, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused. The story putforth by the prosecution apparently is false and does not inspire any confidence. The statement of the prosecutrix also does not inspire any confidence. Therefore, while concurring with the findings returned by learned trial Court, we dismiss this appeal being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.