Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 284 (ALL)

Satta @ Satya Prakash v. State of U. P.

2022-03-03

MOHD.ASLAM

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri S.P.S. Chauhan learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajkamal, learned Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. by the accused-appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Aligarh in Criminal Case No.67 of 2014 (State v. Satta @ Satya Prakash) (arising out of Case Crime No.76/2014) under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act') Police Station-Lodha, District-Aligarh. The accused-appellant Satta @ Satya Prakash was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one year of additional imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 5/6 POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) S/o of Ramji Lal resident of village Lahausara, Police Station-Lodha, District Aligarh lodged the First Information Report on 21.03.2014 at 06:30 PM on the basis of the written complaint (Ex. Ka –1) alleging therein that on 21.03.2014, the informant and his wife (Satyavati) (PW2) had gone to the market at 12 o' clock in the day to purchase some household articles. They had left their son aged about three years at home. When they returned from the market at about 5 PM, their son was not present in the house. When they made search for their son, they found the victim in the house of their neighbour-Satta @ Satya Prakash, resident of Lahausana, Police Station-Lodha, District-Aligarh. The victim was found naked and the accused-appellant Satta @ Satya Prakash was committing the act of sodomy on him. When they raised alarmed, uncle of the informant-Sunil and his wife had forcefully taken the victim in their custody and they took the accused-appellant to the police station to lodge the First Information Report. Constable Manish Kumar (PW-5) prepared chik report (Exhibit Ka–6) on the basis of written complaint of the informant on 21.03.2014 at 6:30 PM and had registered the case as Case Crime No.76 of 2014 under Section 377 IPC and Section 5/6 POSCO Act by making necessary entry in the G.D and the accused-appellant was taken in the custody. Constable Manish Kumar (PW-5) prepared chik report (Exhibit Ka–6) on the basis of written complaint of the informant on 21.03.2014 at 6:30 PM and had registered the case as Case Crime No.76 of 2014 under Section 377 IPC and Section 5/6 POSCO Act by making necessary entry in the G.D and the accused-appellant was taken in the custody. The majroobi chitthi of the victim was prepared by the Constable Manish Kumar and the victim and the accused-appellant Satta @ Satya Prakash were sent to the Primary Health Centre from where they were referred to the District Malkhan Singh Hospital-Aligarh on the same day. Dr. M.K. Mathur conducted the medical examination of victim on 21.3.2014 at 8:20 PM. At the time of medical examination, the age of the victim was found to be of three years. 4. Following injuries were found on the body of the victim at the time of medical examination:- "No external injury seen over the body except Anal part. Lucal examination of Anal part. –Abraded mucosa of Anal Sphincter. –Abrasion present Anterior of part of Anal orifice. -Discharge mucus present in Anal Canal & two slides of discharge preserved for Histopathogical examination. Opinion–Sign of some hard long thing invasion in Anal canal present & Two slides of Discharge from anal part preserved for histopathological examination. Duration : fresh." 5. Dr. M.K. Mathur (PW-4) prepared injury report (Ex. Ka –5) in his handwriting and under his signature at the time of medical examination. In the pathological examination, no spermatozoa was detected in the smear by the Senior Consultant Pathologist, Malkhan Singh District Hospital-Dr. Saeed Mohammad. On the basis of pathological report of the victim, a supplementary report (Ex. Ka-4) was prepared by Dr. M.K. Mathur. He opined that no confirmed opinion can be given about active sexual assault due to spermatozoa not seen in the anal smear. 6. Accused-appellant Satta @ Satya Prakash was also sent for medical examination and was medically examined by Doctor Charan Singh on 21.03.2014 at Malkhan Singh District Hospital. 7. Following injuries were found on the body of the accused Satta @ Satyaprakash at the time of medical examination:- "General condition –conscious oriented Alcoholic smell in breathing of patient found present Pulse Rate-100 per minute, B.P. 126/ 80hg Post polio residual paralysis present in left lower limb. Injuries:-1. 7. Following injuries were found on the body of the accused Satta @ Satyaprakash at the time of medical examination:- "General condition –conscious oriented Alcoholic smell in breathing of patient found present Pulse Rate-100 per minute, B.P. 126/ 80hg Post polio residual paralysis present in left lower limb. Injuries:-1. Contusion 11 cm X 3 cm on left side mid of scapula on back-red in colour. 2. Contusion 15 cm X 3 cm on left side back 4 cm below left scapula-red in colour. 3. Contusion mid of back 25 cm X 3 cm from left side to right side scapula 5 cm below injury no. 1. Examination of genital –pubic hair present. –penis and scrotum are normally developed. -Prepuse easily retractable. –no external injury over penis, glana and external meatus –Two slides prepared from Glana and external meatus for spermatozoal and microscopic examination. Opinion –above said consumed alcohol, above injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt and hard object, duration fresh. Two slides prepared, sealed, labelled and handed over for microscopic examination, underwear sealed, labelled and handed over for microscopic examination to the concerned constable." 8. After the pathological report, Doctor Charan Singh prepared supplementary report. He stated that no spermatozoa was found. In the supplementary report, Dr. Charan Singh reported that microscopic examination of underwear was awaited, hence, opinion could only be given after report of underwear. But injury report and supplementary injury report of the accused-appellant was not proved by the prosecution in the lower court. 9. The investigation of the case was undertaken by the Sub-Inspector Dori Lal Yadav on 21.3.2014. He copied the written complaint of informant in C.D and G.D. registering the case and also recorded the statements of Constable Manish Kumar, informant Rakesh Kumar, mother of victim-Satyavati. He also tried to record the statement of victim but due to tender age, he could not speak and narrate the incident. He also recorded the statement of the accused-appellant Satta @ Satya Prakash in police lock-up of Police Station Lodha. He copied the injury report of victim and the accused Satta @ Satya Prakash. On 22.3.2014, he visited the place of occurrence i.e. house of accused-appellant-Satta @ Satya Prakash alongwith the informant and prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka–3). He also copied supplementary medical reports of the victim and the accused-appellant. He also recorded the statements of Dr. M.K. Mathur and Dr. On 22.3.2014, he visited the place of occurrence i.e. house of accused-appellant-Satta @ Satya Prakash alongwith the informant and prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka–3). He also copied supplementary medical reports of the victim and the accused-appellant. He also recorded the statements of Dr. M.K. Mathur and Dr. Charan Singh and after completing investigation submitted the charge-sheet (Ex. Ka–2). The cognizance of offence under Section 377 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act was taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Aligarh. 10. The court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Aligarh had framed the charges for offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined the informant Rakesh Kumar, father of the victim as Rakesh Kumar (PW-1), Satyavati, mother of the victim as PW-2 as the witnesses of fact, S.I. Dorilal Yadav as PW-3 to prove steps taken in the investigation, charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-2) and site plan (Ex. Ka-3), Dr. M.K. Mathur as PW-4 to prove the supplementary injury report (Ex.Ka-4) and injury report of the victim (Ex. Ka-5) and Constable Manish Kumar as PW-5 to prove chik report (Ex. Ka-6) and G.D. registering the case (Ex. Ka-7). 12. Learned lower court recorded the statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he had denied the prosecution case and had stated that witnesses are falsely deposing against him and he was falsely implicated. It is stated by the accused-appellant that the informant-Rakesh Kumar had lodged false case because Bua (aunt) of the informant alleged to have gone with Kalu (bhanja) of the accused-appellant in which the accused was also falsely nominated and police had filed Final Report in it and due to this enmity the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. 13. Learned court below after appraisal of the evidence found the testimonies of Rakesh Kumar-informant (PW-1) and Satyavati, mother of the victim (PW-2) trustworthy which gets corroboration from the medical report prepared by Dr. M.K. Mathur (PW-4) and materials available on record and held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2018 as mentioned above. 14. M.K. Mathur (PW-4) and materials available on record and held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2018 as mentioned above. 14. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out at the very outset that the medical evidence in this case does not corroborate the prosecution case and accused was solely convicted on the concocted story and the evidences tendered by Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and Satyavati (PW-2) do not get corroboration from the prosecution case. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witness PW-1 and PW-2. It is further contended that no spermatozoa was found in the anal smear taken for pathological examination. It is further submitted that on this account, supplementary report (Ex. Ka-4) was prepared by Dr M.K. Mathur where he opined that no confirmed opinion can be given about active sexual assault due to spermatozoa not seen in the anal smear. It is further contended that the injury sustained by the victim were not established by the evidence on record that the said injuries were caused due to sodomy committed by the accused-appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that if the accused had committed the act of sodomy, victim would have sustained injuries in other parts of the body also but there was no visible injury found except the injury in the anal canal which belies the prosecution case. It is further submitted that PW-1 in his testimony had admitted that mother of the accused-appellant Durga Devi was present in the house when the act of sodomy was alleged to have been committed. It is further submitted that on 5.2.2016, PW-1 and PW2 had submitted their affidavits to the trial judge wherein they have denied the prosecution case. It is further submitted that PW-1 in his testimony had admitted that mother of the accused-appellant Durga Devi was present in the house when the act of sodomy was alleged to have been committed. It is further submitted that on 5.2.2016, PW-1 and PW2 had submitted their affidavits to the trial judge wherein they have denied the prosecution case. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 as Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) had admitted in his examination-in-chief that he alongwith his wife found his son victim in the house of the accused-appellant and at that time accused was committing unnatural offence with the victim after disrobing him while Satyavati (PW-2) in her cross-examination stated that she had first gone in search of her son and when she found her son in the house of accused-appellant, thereafter, she called her husband. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the above contradictions in the statement goes to the root of the case and establishes that above named two witnesses have not seen the occurrence and their testimonies are unreliable and learned lower court has wrongly believed on their testimonies and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The judgment of learned lower court is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) stated in examination-in-chief that when he saw the accused-appellant, he was actually assaulting his son but contrary to this, in his cross-examination, he admitted that when he saw the accused-appellant he was wearing jeans pant and t-shirt. He had further admitted that appellant is handicapped from his leg and he can only move with support of his knee and hand. In above circumstances, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Sub-Inspector Dori Lal Yadav (PW-3) had admitted that at the time of alleged incident there was a party bandi in the village. It is further submitted that except father and mother of the victim, no independent witness was produced by prosecution to prove the case against the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that allegations in the First Information Report are false and baseless and there is no evidence on record which could substantiate the charge against the appellant. It is further submitted that except father and mother of the victim, no independent witness was produced by prosecution to prove the case against the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that allegations in the First Information Report are false and baseless and there is no evidence on record which could substantiate the charge against the appellant. It is further submitted that trial court has misread the evidence and without considering the facts and evidence on record illegally passed the impugned judgment and order which is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to the allowed. 16. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has, vehemently, opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the occurrence had taken place on 21.3.2014 at about 05:00 PM and the First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh on the same day i.e. 21.3.2014 at 06:30 PM. It is further submitted that the First Information Report was lodged promptly which ruled out any sort of concoction and deliberation for false implication of the accused. It is further submitted that the victim was taken to the Primary Health Centre along with majroobi chitthi on 21.3.2014 and, thereafter, he was referred to Malkhan Singh District Hospital-Aligarh. The victim was medically examined promptly at 08:20 PM on 21.3.2014 at Malkhan Singh District Hospital by Dr. M.K. Mathur (PW-4) who found injuries on 'anal spchinter and another was on anterior part of anal orifice' and prepared the injury report (Ex. Ka-5). The doctor had opined that 'sign of some hard long thing invasion in anal canal was found present'. It is contended by learned Government Advocate that the said injuries were proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that the contradictions in the statements of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and Satyavati (PW-2) are of minor nature and do not go to the root of the case. It is further submitted that it is not necessary that in every case of penetrative sexual assault, the spermatozoa shall always be found in the anal smear of the victim. It is further contended by learned Government Advocate that Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and Satyavati (PW-2) had given detailed description about the time of their proceeding to market and time of their return from market. It is further contended by learned Government Advocate that Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and Satyavati (PW-2) had given detailed description about the time of their proceeding to market and time of their return from market. They had also given detailed description that they had visited market to purchase household articles. They have also told the distance of Aligarh market from their village and by which vehicle they had gone to the market. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the record, it was proved beyond doubt that accused has committed sodomy or in other words have committed penetrative sexual assault on victim and learned lower court has rightly held him guilty and has awarded appropriate sentence which requires no interference in this appeal. 17. In this case, the occurrence as alleged to have taken place at about 5 PM on 21.3.2014 and the FIR was lodged at 06:30 PM on the same day. The FIR was lodged by Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) on the basis of written complaint (Ex. Ka-1). Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) deposed that he got ascribed the written report by dictating, thereafter, he signed on it. No question was asked regarding concoction of FIR. It was not challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant that written complaint was ascribed on the dictation of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1). No question was asked regarding enmity of the complainant with the accused. No question was asked about time of lodging of FIR. In the cross-examination, no question was asked regarding concoction or deliberation in the FIR. 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Baby Alias Sebastain & Anr. v. Circle Inspector of Police, Adimaly (2016) SCC OnLine SC 742 held that prompt lodging of the FIR precludes the possibility of deliberation to falsely implicate any person. In this case, the prompt lodging of FIR has not been challenged. It was also not stated that FIR was an outcome of concoction and due deliberation. 19. In above circumstance, prompt lodging of FIR is of great significance which rule out any sort of possibility of deliberation, concoction and false implication of the accused. From the perusal of FIR, it is clear that the accused was apprehended on the spot while committing the act of sodomy on the victim. 19. In above circumstance, prompt lodging of FIR is of great significance which rule out any sort of possibility of deliberation, concoction and false implication of the accused. From the perusal of FIR, it is clear that the accused was apprehended on the spot while committing the act of sodomy on the victim. From the depositions of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and Satyavati (PW-2), it is proved that Sunil (chachia sasur) also accompanied them and apprehended the accused, beaten him, took him to the police station and lodged FIR which also gets corroboration from the medical report of the accused-appellant. From the perusal of his injury report, it is apparent that the accused-appellant sustained three contusions but it is unfortunate that the said medical report is not proved by the prosecution. 20. Section 53 of Cr.P.C. provides for examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer which is as follows:- "53. Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer. --(1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of the police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as reasonably necessary for that purpose. (2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner. (2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner. Explanation–In this Section and in Sections 53–A and 54,– (a)" examination" shall include the examination of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and fingernail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks necessary in a particular case; (b) "registered medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who possesses any medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of Section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and whose name has been entered in a State Medical Register." 21. From the perusal of the record it is proved that Investigating Officer got the accused medically examined but it is a sorry state of affair that in the court, the medical examination report of accused-appellant was not proved. 22. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Anjaneyulu (2010) 14 S.C.C. 621 held that where First Information Report was lodged promptly with independent eyewitness included in the First Information Report and the spontaneity of the FIR also supports eyewitness account, the prosecution case is liable to be relied on. Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 4 S.C.C. 379 in para 12' has observed as follows:- "12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of the eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in launching the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. If there is a delay in launching the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question. {(Vide Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393 , State of Punjab v. Surja Ram (1995) Supp (3) SCC 419, Girish Yadav v. State of M.P. (1996) 8 SCC 186 , and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 158 .) } 23. On going through the depositions of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and Satyavati (PW-2), it appears that nothing came in their cross-examination which suggest that there was any enmity which prompts them to falsely implicate the accused-appellant. It is stated by the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Bua of Rakesh had gone with Kalu (Bhanja of the accused-appellant). The witness Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) had admitted that Reshamiya was sister of accused and Omkar @ Kalu was her son. He had denied the contention that Omkar had enticed away the daughter of Chirmauli Das. He denied the contention that accused-appellant was falsely implicated due to enmity. 24. At this juncture, I find it necessary to discuss the law regarding proof of the criminal case. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act-1872 defines 'Proved', 'Disproved' and ' Not Proved' as under:- "Proved". –A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. "Disproved".-A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. "Not Proved".-A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. 25. "Not Proved".-A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. 25. The required standard of proof in criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt and in civil cases, it is preponderance of probabilities. This distinction is basically made through judicial pronouncement in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutor (1935 UKHL1), Rex v. Abramovitch (1914) 11 Cr. App. R 45). 26. The case relates to the menace of sexual crime against children, therefore, motive plays no role in such crime. Oral testimony of a witness can be appreciated by considering his cross-examination, if he remains uncontroverted in the cross-examination, by weighing his testimony with the testimonies of the other witnesses, whether his testimony gets corroboration from the reliable testimonies of other witness and by analysing and evaluating whether his testimony is contradictory or corroborated by the documentary evidence, adduced in the case, then his testimony is reliable. 27. In light of aforesaid, it is necessary to examine the effect of presumption arising under Section 29 POCSO Act. Section 29 of the POCSO Act reads as follows: "Section 29–Presumption as to certain offences –Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of the this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved." 28. Perusal of the above provision does indicate that it is for the accused to prove the contrary that he has not committed or abetted the commission of an offence under sections 3, 5, 7, and section 9 of the POCSO Act and, in case, he fails to do so, presumption would operate against him leading to his conviction under the provision of the Act. It cannot be disputed that no presumption is absolute and every presumption is rebuttable. It cannot be said that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is absolute. It will come into operation only when prosecution is first able to establish the fact and that would form the foundation of the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act to operate. Otherwise, entire burden would be on the accused to prove the contrary. It will come into operation only when prosecution is first able to establish the fact and that would form the foundation of the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act to operate. Otherwise, entire burden would be on the accused to prove the contrary. Such position of law or interpretation of presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot be accepted as it would clearly violate the constitutional mandate and no person can be deprived of liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 29. The manner in which such presumption would operate against the accused has been analysed and deliberated upon by the courts, because such a presumption is also provided for in various statutes such as Prevention of Corruption Act-1988. In the case of Babu versus State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 held in para 27 and para 28 as follows :- (IV) Burden of Proof and Doctrine of Innocence. "27. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. However, subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of the criminal jurisprudence. For this purpose, the nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity thereof has to be taken into consideration. The courts must be on guard to see that merely an the application of the presumption, the same may not lead to any injustice or mistaken conviction. Statutes like the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881; The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, provide for presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. However such a presumption can also be raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. There may be difficulty in proving a negative fact. 28. However, in cases where the statute does not provide for the burden of proof on the accused, it always lies on the prosecution. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as of those is statutes as referred to hereinabove, that the burden of proof is on the accused. The statutory provision even for a presumption of guilt of the accused under a particular statute must meet the tests of reasonableness and liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution." 30. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as of those is statutes as referred to hereinabove, that the burden of proof is on the accused. The statutory provision even for a presumption of guilt of the accused under a particular statute must meet the tests of reasonableness and liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution." 30. Keeping the aforesaid position of law in mind, evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the present case will have to be examined to find out whether the prosecution has established a presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. 31. In this case, the informant and the father of the victim-Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) had stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21.3.2014 at about 12 o' clock in the day, he alongwith his wife Smt. Satyavati (PW-2) went to the Aligarh market to purchase some household articles leaving the victim at home alongwith his two other sons and when they returned back from the market at about 05:30 PM, they did not found the victim at home. On search being made by them, they found the victim in the house of accused-appellant. They apprehended the accused-appellant and saw that the accused-appellant was committing the act of sodomy with the victim by disrobing him. They raised alarm and other villagers also got collected there. The accused-appellant was beaten by the public and was taken to the police station where FIR was lodged against him. The written complaint was ascribed as (Ex. Ka-1). In the cross-examination, he disclosed the names of his sons including the victim. He also disclosed the distance of the market from his village and stated that he lives with his wife and three children. He is mason by profession and he usually leaves home at 08:30 AM in the morning for work and returns back at 06:00 PM. He corroborates that on the day of occurrence he alongwith his wife went to the market and mother of the accused-appellant (Durgadevi) was present in the house of the accused at the time of occurrence. He further stated that when he alongwith his wife returned back, they enquired about the victim and they were told that the victim might be playing outside. They gave him call at the high-pitch but nobody responded. They heard the sound of weeping of his son from the house of accused-appellant. He further stated that when he alongwith his wife returned back, they enquired about the victim and they were told that the victim might be playing outside. They gave him call at the high-pitch but nobody responded. They heard the sound of weeping of his son from the house of accused-appellant. At that time the accused-appellant was wearing jeans pant, t-shirt and the accused-appellant is handicapped and he creeps on knee. He further stated that the victim was wearing t-shirt and underwear. When they reached there, they apprehended the accused-appellant. The accused was committing the act of sodomy with the victim and mother of the accused-appellant did not came out of her room. He had clearly stated that he did not had any enmity with the accused-appellant and had stated that the accused had fallen on the ground from the side of his buttock and, as a consequence thereof, he had sustained injuries. He further clarified that signatures on the affidavit (Ex.Kha/2) denying the incident were obtained fraudulently. 32. From the above evidence on record, it transpires that there is no contradiction in the deposition of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and on reading the whole statement it is clear that signature on the affidavit was obtained by fraud. They being illiterate people could hardly read the contents of affidavit. 33. Insofar as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding his statement that he alongwith his wife went to the house of accused-appellant is concerned, the PW-1 in his cross-examination had clarified that first of all his wife (PW-2) went to the place of occurrence and when she raised alarm, he alongwith Sunil and other persons reached there and apprehended the accused-appellant. The statement of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) is, thus, reliable. 34. So far as the statements of Satyavati (PW-2) is concerned, she had supported the prosecution version and stated that on 21.3.2014 at 12 o' clock in the day, she alongwith her husband went to the Aligarh market for purchasing certain household articles. They left their children at home. When they returned from the market at about 05:00 pm, they saw the victim missing. They started search for the victim and found the victim at the house of the accused-appellant who was doing wrong act with the victim. They left their children at home. When they returned from the market at about 05:00 pm, they saw the victim missing. They started search for the victim and found the victim at the house of the accused-appellant who was doing wrong act with the victim. She further deposed that police had got her son medically examined and in the cross-examination she had stated that the house of the accused-appellant is in front of their house. She had also stated that while she was going to the market she asked one Munni Devi to look after her children. She stated that her mother-in-law was living separately with them and when they proceeded for their house, her mother-in-law also came to the house. She further deposed that she found blood in the underwear of the victim and she handed over it to the police. She also corroborated that signature in the affidavit denying incident was obtained through deceitful means by playing fraud. 35. From the perusal of medical report (Ex.Ka-5) and the supplementary medical report (Ex. Ka-4) prepared by Dr. M.K. Mathur (PW-4), it is proved that the victim sustained injuries as 'abraded mucosa of anal sphincter and abrasion was present in the anterior part of anal orifice and two slides were taken for histopathological examination' where no spermatozoa was found in the anal smear. 36. The above evidence shows that the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 gets corroboration from the medical report. 37. It is pertinent to note here that the accused-appellant was also medically examined wherein 'alcoholic smell was found present in his breath' and he also sustained the injuries which are already mentioned above in the body of judgment. It is a matter of strange and sheer lapse on the part of the official concerned that the injuries of the accused-appellant have not been proved. 38. The statement of Satyavati (PW-2) is natural, without material contradiction and inspires confidence. Her statement gets corroboration from the statement of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and medical reports. S.I. Dori Lal Yadav (PW-3) proved the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-2), site plan (Ex. Ka-3) and also the steps taken in the investigation whereas Constable Manish Kumar (PW-5) has proved the chik report (Ex. Ka-6) and G.D. (Ex. Ka-7) which are formal in nature. 39. Her statement gets corroboration from the statement of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and medical reports. S.I. Dori Lal Yadav (PW-3) proved the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-2), site plan (Ex. Ka-3) and also the steps taken in the investigation whereas Constable Manish Kumar (PW-5) has proved the chik report (Ex. Ka-6) and G.D. (Ex. Ka-7) which are formal in nature. 39. It is also pertinent to note here that the accused-appellant had tried to manipulate and temper with the evidence as the signatures of PW-1 and PW-2 were fraudulently obtained in the affidavit denying the incident. 40. From the evidence available on record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Satta @ Satya Prakash had committed grave offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act and the learned lower court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned above. 41. In above circumstance, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 42. The judgment and order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.08, Aligarh is hereby affirmed. 43. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 44. Let the Lower Court Record be returned to the court concerned forthwith.