JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2022 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Commission for Child Rights Protection Act, 2005, No.1, Alwar, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376-3, 342 IPC and Sentence under Section 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced as under:- U/s 363 IPC:- Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further, one month additional rigorous imprisonment; U/s 366 IPC:- Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further two months additional rigorous imprisonment; U/s 342 IPC:- One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further seven days additional rigorous imprisonment; U/s 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012:- Imprisonment for life till the remaining natural life and fine of Rs.50,000/-. It has been observed that since the accused-appellant has been sentenced for the offence under Section 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act,2012, hence as per the provision of Section 42 of POCSO Act, there is no need to award separate sentence for offence under Section 376(3) IPC. It has been further ordered that all the above sentences of accused-appellant shall run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.04.2021, complainant-Aslam lodged a written report against the appellant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhiwadi, Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on 01.04.2021. It was alleged in the report that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken away by the appellant in a Masjid and she was subjected to rape and was also beaten and threatened. 3. On the basis of above, police registered FIR No.42/2021 and after due investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 342, 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 and 307 of IPC and Section 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The Trial Court has framed charges against the accused-appellant. Appellant denied the charges and claim to be tried. During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11. In documentary evidence, 25 documents were exhibited. Certain articles were also produced before the Court. 4. The Trial Court has framed charges against the accused-appellant. Appellant denied the charges and claim to be tried. During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11. In documentary evidence, 25 documents were exhibited. Certain articles were also produced before the Court. 4. After recording the explanation of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 17.10.2022 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 342 of IPC and Section 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him as mentioned herein above. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix (PW-1), her father-complainant (PW-2-Aslam) and her mother (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution version. It is also contended that Dr. Sushila Meena (PW-5) has stated in her examination-in-chief that the prosecutrix was not having any internal injuries. The hymen was old torn and there were no injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix. It is contended that the Court below has erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of DNA report when the DNA report itself is under a cloud of doubt. It is contended that as per the version in the FIR, the incident took place on 01.04.2021. FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay on 08.04.2021. It is also contended that when the principal witnesses have turned hostile, conviction could not have been made only on the basis of DNA report, as the DNA report only has corroborative value. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. It is contended that the prosecutrix was a young girl aged 13 years and she alongwith her family members were won over by the accused. 7. We have considered the contentions and have perused the record. 8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that PW- 1(prosecutrix), PW-2 (her father) and PW-4 (her mother) have turned hostile. PW-1 (victim) has specifically stated before the Court that she was not taken away by anyone and no rape was committed upon her. From perusal of the statement of PW-5 (Dr. Sushila Meena), it is evident that the prosecutrix was not having any mark of injuries on her private part. Her hymen was old torn. PW-1 (victim) has specifically stated before the Court that she was not taken away by anyone and no rape was committed upon her. From perusal of the statement of PW-5 (Dr. Sushila Meena), it is evident that the prosecutrix was not having any mark of injuries on her private part. Her hymen was old torn. PW-10 (Lal Singh) who was the Malkhana incharge has stated that on 20.04.2021, I.O. sent a box which had ’Mark-A’ mentioned on it. He made the entry on 20.04.2021 but the material was sent straight to the FSL on 16.04.2021. He has also exhibited the Malkhana Register as Ex.P-25. Not entering the articles seized from the accused i.e. his underwear in the Malkhana Register and sending it directly to the FSL and thereafter, recording it on a later date in the Malkhana Register creates doubt on the prosecution story with regard to the recovery. 9. We are of the considered view that when the prosecutrix, her mother and father have turned hostile and there were no mark of injuries on her private parts, it is a fit case for acquittal. Learned trial Court has clearly erred in placing the conviction only on the basis of DNA report which itself is under a cloud of doubt as the recovered articles were not deposited in the Malkhana and as to where they were kept is not indicated by the evidence. From Ex. P-14, from the recovery memo of underwear, it is evident that underwear was recovered on 13.04.2021. As to why it was not deposited in the Malkhana and as to where it remained till it was sent to the FSL creates doubt on the recovery. Without deposit of material in Malkhana, entry was made in the Malkhana Register by PW-10 (Lal Singh). This creates a doubt upon veracity of prosecution. Thus, Trial Court has clearly erred in convicting the accused. 10. In Manoj and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0711/2022, the Apex Court has held that the evidentiary value of the DNA is corroborative. In the present case in hand, since the seizure of underwear becomes doubtful as it was not deposited in the Malkhana, the DNA loses its corroborative value as well, we therefore, deem it proper to allow the appeal. 11. Criminal appeal is accordingly, allowed. In the present case in hand, since the seizure of underwear becomes doubtful as it was not deposited in the Malkhana, the DNA loses its corroborative value as well, we therefore, deem it proper to allow the appeal. 11. Criminal appeal is accordingly, allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2022 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Commission for Child Rights Protection Act, 2005, No.1, Alwar is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against them. He is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. 12. Appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months.