JUDGMENT P.Sree Sudha, J. - This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 15.10.2018 in S.C. PCS No.47 of 2018 passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial Of Cases under Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Hyderabad. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused alleged to have raped the victim child and thus it is alleged that accused committed offences punishable under Section 5 (i) (m) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376 (2)(i)(m) of IPC. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 on their behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 4. Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of defence. The Trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 5(i)(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment, accused preferred the present appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that as per complaint given by father of the victim child is that he hails from UP State about three years back, for livelihood he came to Hyderabad and he also brought Sher Singh, Venu, Rinku, Azad, Niraj to assist him in his work and all of them were residing in his house. Deepu Singh/accused also residing in his house. On the intervening night of 06.09.2016, at around 01.00 a.m. his younger daughter, Naina, was sleeping along with her mother and the accused took her into the bathroom and committed rape and brought her back and laid her on the cot. When he and his wife heard the cries of the baby, they noticed bleeding from her private parts and immediately they took her to Gandhi Hospital and went to the police station and requested them to take action against the accused and filed complaint on 07.09.2016 in Crime No.535 of 2016 under Section 376 (2)(i)(m) of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(i) & (m) of POCSO Act, 2012 and it was signed by the complainant/P.W.1 in Hindi. 4. 4. P.W.1, in his evidence stated that he had three daughters and the victim girl is younger daughter and she was aged 3 years on the date of deposition i.e., 18.0.2018, but at the time of incident, she was aged one year. He along with his two daughters were sleeping in one room, Renu, Sher Singh, Rinku, Neeraj, Azad and Deep Singh/accused were sleeping in another room in their house. When he heard the cries of the victim girl, he woke up and observed that accused keeping the victim girl beside his wife and on observing the victim girl; he noticed that the victim girl was bleeding from her private parts. The clothes of the victim girl were also found with blood. He gave complaint under Ex.P1 and the police examined him and recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, he stated that he do not know Telugu and the complaint and the statement were scribed by the Inspector of Chilkalguda PS as per his dictation. He did not witness the accused taking the victim girl to bathroom. He has not stated to the police that the accused brought the victim girl from bathroom and kept her beside his wife on the cot. It was suggested that victim girl fell down from the cot and received injuries and the accused never committed any offence and lodged a false complaint against the accused and he denied it. 5. P.W.2 is mother of the victim girl and she also deposed in the same lines. When they took her to Gandhi Hospital, doctor examined the victim girl and told that she was raped. She handed over the clothes of the victim girl to the police. In the cross-examination she stated that she handed over the clothes of the victim girl in hospital. It was suggested that the victim girl received injuries and no offence was committed on the girl, but she denied it. 6. P.W.3 is younger brother of P.W.1 and he also deposed in the same lines. When he heard the cries of P.Ws.1 and 2, he immediately rushed to their room and noticed the victim was bleeding from her private parts. The clothes of victim girl were also found with blood. The accused was also present and he committed sexual assault on the victim girl by taking her to bathroom. When he heard the cries of P.Ws.1 and 2, he immediately rushed to their room and noticed the victim was bleeding from her private parts. The clothes of victim girl were also found with blood. The accused was also present and he committed sexual assault on the victim girl by taking her to bathroom. Immediately, he and P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted her in the hospital and they gave complaint. The doctor examined the victim girl and told that the girl was raped. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not state before the police that he went to the hospital later and saw the victim girl admitted in the hospital and undergoing treatment. 7. As per Ex.P2, P.W.4 is panch witness for the scene of offence. Ex.P2 is scene of offence panchanama. In the cross-examination, he stated that he do not know what was written in the scene of offence panchanama. He stated that panchanama was conducted in his presence and he observed two rooms and there was one T.V, cot and one cooler in one room. 8. P.W.5 is panch witness for confession and seizure. M.Os.1 to 3 were seized from the accused. Ex.P3 is the admissible portion of confession cum seizure panchanama. P.W.6 is doctor, who examined the victim girl on 07.09.2016. He stated that the victim girl was admitted in emergency and was referred to Pediatric Surgical Opinion. He examined the victim child and found that she has injury in her perineum which was deep injury and was bleeding and the cause of injury could not be ascertained at that time. He issued medical examination opinion of victim girl under Ex.P4 and it bears his signature. Basing on Ex.P4, Superintendent gave MLC opinion and nature of injury certificate opining that the injuries sustained by the victim child are grievous in nature. Ex.P5 is the injury certificate issued by Superintendent. In the cross-examination, he stated that the medical record of admission of victim girl as either outpatient or inpatient was not collected by the police. 9. P.W.7 is panch witness for scene of offence. Ex.P6 is rough sketch map. He further stated that police called him to the house of victim girl and conducted scene of offence panchanama of the house of victim child in his presence. P.W.1 handed over the frock of victim child and M.O.4 is the frock of the victim child. 9. P.W.7 is panch witness for scene of offence. Ex.P6 is rough sketch map. He further stated that police called him to the house of victim girl and conducted scene of offence panchanama of the house of victim child in his presence. P.W.1 handed over the frock of victim child and M.O.4 is the frock of the victim child. Ex.P7 is the seizure panchanama of frock. It was suggested to him that the place of bathroom in the house of the victim girl was not mentioned and he cannot say the designation of the police who scribed Ex.P7. He is an illiterate. He does not know who handed over the frock to the police. 10. P.W.8 is Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine. On 09.09.2016, he received a requisition to conduct Potency Test of the accused and as per medical board opinion individual has no signs in favour of impotency and issued Ex.P8-Potency Certificate of the accused and it bears signature of P.W.8 along with signatures of other members and Medical Superintendent. 11. P.W.9 is Inspector of Police, Traffic PS, Chikkadpally. He stated that on 07.09.2016 at around 8.00 a.m, P.W.1 gave complaint under Ex.P1 and he registered it as Cr.No.535 of 2016 and issued FIR under Ex.P9. Immediately, he proceeded towards Gandhi Hospital and examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3. He also gave requisition to P.W.6. After examining the victim girl, he issued Ex.P4 and later he visited the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch map under Ex.P6 in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 7. On 07.09.2016, police apprehended the accused at his house and produced before him. He voluntarily confessed the guilt of commission of offence. In pursuant to the confession of accused, he seized M.Os.1 to 3 and also prepared confession cum seizure panchanama. 12. On 08.09.2016, P.W.1 came to police station with the frock of victim girl stating that he found the said frock in the thorn bushes near to his house on 07.09.2016 at about 3.00 p.m. and he seized M.O.4/frock in the presence of P.W.7 and L.W.10 and he forwarded M.Os.1 to 4 to the FSL. Ex.P10 is the FSL report. 12. On 08.09.2016, P.W.1 came to police station with the frock of victim girl stating that he found the said frock in the thorn bushes near to his house on 07.09.2016 at about 3.00 p.m. and he seized M.O.4/frock in the presence of P.W.7 and L.W.10 and he forwarded M.Os.1 to 4 to the FSL. Ex.P10 is the FSL report. Basing on the statements of witnesses and as per Ex.P8, he altered the Section of Law from 376 of IPC and section 5(m) of POCSO Act to Section 36(2)(i) & (m) of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(i) & (m) of POCSO Act and filed alteration memo under Ex.P11 before the Court. After collecting all the documents and on completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. In the cross-examination, he admitted that P.W.1 does not know how to read and write Telugu and it was not mentioned in the complaint that the contents were read over to him in vernacular language. P.W.1 cannot speak and understand Telugu and he has not examined the scribe of complaint. He also admitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 does not know how to read and write Telugu as they are North Indians. He admitted that he did not examine Rinku, Azad and Neeraj as they are not available. He has not obtained the photographs of scene of offence. 13. In Ex.P6, the doors and rooms of the scene of offence were not specifically shown. He stated that there was no blood stains found in the scene of offence. He further stated that M.O.3 is not the same underwear which was sent to the FSL. In Ex.P3, it was mentioned that cut underwear whereas in Ex.P10/FSL report, it was mentioned as full underwear at item No.5. He also admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him that he woke up on hearing the cries of the victim girl. It was suggested that the victim girl fell down from the cot and received injuries and he filed charge sheet against the accused without proper investigation, but he denied it. 14. Now, it is for this Court to decide whether the accused raped the victim girl aged one year at the time of offence or not. 15. It was suggested that the victim girl fell down from the cot and received injuries and he filed charge sheet against the accused without proper investigation, but he denied it. 14. Now, it is for this Court to decide whether the accused raped the victim girl aged one year at the time of offence or not. 15. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the victim girl and as per medical evidence of P.W.6 along with Exs.P4 and P5 and medical examination of the accused by P.W.8 along with Ex.P8, clearly shows that the victim girl aged one year was raped. The case of prosecution is that accused took away the victim girl into bathroom while she was sleeping with her parents and he committed offence, again brought her back and laid down her beside her mother. While he was keeping her in the cot, P.Ws.1 and 2 got up and found the girl was bleeding from the private parts and immediately they took her to Gandhi Hospital and thereafter, P.W.1 gave complaint against the accused. P.W.1 and 2 did not see when the accused was taking away the victim girl into the bathroom. P.W.2 clearly stated that when they took her to hospital, doctor after examination stated that the girl was raped and on the next day, they gave complaint. P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly stated that the clothes of the victim girl were found with blood. The Inspector of Police stated that he went to the hospital and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3 and P.W.2 stated that she handed over the blood stained clothes of the victim girl to the police in the hospital. The police arrested the accused on the day of the complaint at about 03.00 pm and seized M.Os.1 to 3 from the accused. 16. It was suggested that M.O.3 which was seized from the accused sent to the FSL are not one and the same. Learned counsel for the accused suggested as per the panchanama, M.O.3 was cut underwear, whereas FSL report in item No.5, it was shown as full underwear. Accused in his confession stated that he took the child from her parents and went into the bathroom and removed her underwear and committed penetrative sexual assault, but he has not stated that he also removed the frock when he committed assault. Accused in his confession stated that he took the child from her parents and went into the bathroom and removed her underwear and committed penetrative sexual assault, but he has not stated that he also removed the frock when he committed assault. Even P.Ws.1 and 2 found bleeding from the private parts of the girl, but they have not stated that frock of the girl was removed from her. Both of them consistently stated that clothes of the victim girl were found with blood. This clearly shows that even the frock of the victim girl was found with blood and it was handed over by them to the police on the same day after examination by the doctor in the hospital. But the Investigating Officer stated that on the next day i.e., on 08.09.2016, P.W.1 handed over the frock of the victim girl and he stated that he found it at a distance of 50ft. from the house at about 03.00 pm on 07.09.2016 in bushes. This is one of the major investigation lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer and none of the witnesses stated regarding the removal of the frock. How the frock was found in bushes at a distance of 50 feet from the house is not explained by P.Ws.1 and 2. Moreover, it was not recovered at the instance of accused along with other M.Os. As per FSL report, semen and spermatozoa was detected on item No.3/frock of the victim girl. P.W.1 did not explain why he had not handed over the frock immediately when he found it on 07.09.2016 at 03.00 pm and why he handed over it to the police the next day. 17. In this case, the victim girl was aged one year at the time of offence. When examination was done on the M.Os for tracing of the semen by the FSL, the Investigating Officers did not give requisition for the DNA examination. In fact, the scene of offence i.e., bathroom was not clearly shown in the rough sketch. The Investigating Officer simply mentioned ground floor, first floor and second floor in the rough sketch. P.W.1 stated that he along with his wife and children were residing in one room and other persons who were brought by him from his village i.e., Sher Singh, Venu, Rinku, Azad, Niraj and accused were residing in neighbouring room. The Investigating Officer simply mentioned ground floor, first floor and second floor in the rough sketch. P.W.1 stated that he along with his wife and children were residing in one room and other persons who were brought by him from his village i.e., Sher Singh, Venu, Rinku, Azad, Niraj and accused were residing in neighbouring room. The presence of accused in the neighbouring room was not shown in the rough sketch. 18. In the complaint, only the name of the accused was shown whereas the presence of other persons in the next room was not mentioned. The Investigating Officers not even examined the other persons i.e., Sher Singh, Venu, Rinku, Azad, Niraj, who were residing in another room and simply stated that they are not available during the offence which was committed in the midnight and P.Ws.1 and 2 are available witnesses to the occurrence. There were contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. They have not seen the accused taking away the girl into the bathroom and committal offence, but stated that they woke up when he brought back the girl and laying her beside her mother. Even then, they have not suspected the accused. As the girl was bleeding from her private parts, they rushed to the hospital, and the doctor examined the victim girl and stated that the girl was raped. Then only P.W.1 went to the police station and gave complaint. 19. It was suggested that accused also came into the room along with P.W.3 and others and it was denied. The defence of the accused is that girl fell down from the cot and sustained injuries and he was falsely implicated in the case. As per medical evidence, the victim girl sustained wounds in the perineum. Investigating Officer has not collected any proof to show whether the victim girl was treated in the hospital and where she was admitted as inpatient and outpatient. When there are many other persons in the next room of P.W.1, it is for the Investigating Officer to go for DNA test. But all of them went on the presumption that offence was committed by accused alone. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held as follows: Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. But all of them went on the presumption that offence was committed by accused alone. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held as follows: Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Babu Vs State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held as follows: 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 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 on the application of the presumption, the same may not lead to any injustice or mistaken conviction. 20. The victim girl was aged one year and there is forcible sexual assault and there was bleeding from vagina and anal region. She was hospitalized for management of wounds in the verlihule perineum and was treated accordingly. There is no proper investigation why the accused committed offence on minor girl who was aged one year and there was no proper cross-examination by the counsel for the accused. Investigating Officer stated that he has not found any blood stains in the bathroom. When the child was bleeding profusely and offence was committed in the bathroom, there can be scope of having certain incriminating material in the bathroom like blood stains. The scene of offence was not properly figured by the Investigating Officer. He simply stated that there is no incriminating material as such he has not shown any room (bathroom) in the rough sketch. There was no investigation to show whether the offence was committed by any other person who are in the next room. It was brought in the evidence that certain damaged items were kept in the next room. But, P.W.1 stated that accused along with others were staying in the next room. There was no investigation to show whether the offence was committed by any other person who are in the next room. It was brought in the evidence that certain damaged items were kept in the next room. But, P.W.1 stated that accused along with others were staying in the next room. No proper scene of offence panchanama was conducted by the investigating officer and rough sketch is also not on proper lines. It is for the prosecution to connect the accused with the offence. In a case of sensitive nature, the investigating Officer should be more cautious in conducting the investigation, but the investigation done was very casual especially the seizure of frock by P.W.1 from the bushes at a distance of 50 feet from his house is obnoxious. There is no explanation by the prosecution regarding the argument of the accused that M.O.3 seized from the accused and sent to the FSL are not one and the same. 21. No doubt, heinous offence was committed against minor girl aged one year. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of offence beyond reasonable against the accused. In this case, it is for the Court to scrutinize whether the prosecution succeeded in linking up the accused with the offence. In view of several lapses on the part of the investigation, this Court finds that prosecution miserably failed to connect the accused with the offence. Admittedly, P.W.1 knows Hindi and he does not know how to read and write Telugu, but the complaint was written in Telugu and he signed in Hindi on the complaint. When the contents in the complaint were explained to P.W.1, he simply stated that he does not know Telugu. Though P.W.2 stated that she handed over the blood stained clothes of the victim to the police in the hospital, it was not mentioned in detail as to whether the said clothes are frock or underwear or any cloth in which victim girl was taken to the hospital. When the investigating Officer recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the hospital, why the investigating Officer has not collected the blood stained clothes of the minor child on the same day, was not explained anywhere. It appears to fill up lacuna, the frock was seized at the instance of P.W.1 by the investigating Officer. When the investigating Officer recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the hospital, why the investigating Officer has not collected the blood stained clothes of the minor child on the same day, was not explained anywhere. It appears to fill up lacuna, the frock was seized at the instance of P.W.1 by the investigating Officer. Even after representing the frock as M.O.3, when semen or spermatozoa was found on it, the investigating Officer has not opted for DNA profiling. In this case, the accused is languishing in jail from 15.10.2018. Admittedly, in this criminal case, the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 22. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 5 (i) (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act by the judgment dated 15.10.2018 passed in S.C.PCS.No.47 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012, Hyderabad, are hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. VICTIM COMPENSATION: 23. However, it is relevant to note that learned trial Court did not award any victim compensation. The victim was one year old as on the date of incident. Therefore, as per Section-33 (8) of the POCSO Act, the victim is entitled for compensation. (i) As per Section - 33 (8) of the POCSO Act and Rule - 9 of the Rules, 2020, the Special Court is having power to determine the compensation to the victim and forward the same to the DLSA for disbursal of the award amount. The DLSA is under legal obligation to give effect to the compensation determined by the Special Court. The DLSA is under legal obligation to give effect to the compensation determined by the Special Court. (ii) The Apex Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703 , held as under: 'The Special Court upon receipt of information as to commission of any offence under the Act by registration of FIR shall on his own or on the application of the victim make enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the State and other affected parties including the victim pass appropriate order for interim compensation and/or rehabilitation of the child. In conclusion of proceeding, whether the accused is convicted or not, or in cases where the accused has not been traced or had absconded, the Special Court being satisfied that the victim had suffered loss or injury due to commission of the offence shall award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the victim. The quantum of the compensation shall be fixed taking into consideration the loss and injury suffered by the victim and other related factors as laid down in Rule 7(3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 and shall not be restricted to the minimum amounts prescribed in the Victim Compensation Fund. The interim/final compensation shall be paid either from the Victim Compensation Fund or any other special scheme/fund established under section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (sic) or any other law for the time being in force through the State Legal Services Authorities or the District Services Authority in whose hands the Fund is entrusted. If the Court declines to pass interim or final compensation in the instant case it shall record its reasons for not doing so. The interim compensation, so paid, shall be adjusted with final compensation, if any, awarded by the Special Court in conclusion of trial in terms of section 33(8) of the Act.' 24. If the Court declines to pass interim or final compensation in the instant case it shall record its reasons for not doing so. The interim compensation, so paid, shall be adjusted with final compensation, if any, awarded by the Special Court in conclusion of trial in terms of section 33(8) of the Act.' 24. In view of the above discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the matter with regard to determination of victim compensation is remanded to the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of children from Sexual Offences Act - cum - I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, with a direction to determine the victim compensation to be paid to the victim in terms of Section - 33 (8) of the POCSO Act and Rule - 9 of the Rules, 2020. Since the accident occurred on 06.09.2016 (midnight at 01.00 am), the Special Court/trial Court is directed to complete the said exercise in consultation with District Legal Services Authority within three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.