JUDGMENT : G. A. Sanap, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant/accused has challenged the judgment and order, dated 14.12.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, Chandrapur. Learned Special Judge held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act” for short) read with Sections 376(1)(A) and 376(2)(f)(j)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months ; as well as for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. BACKGROUND FACTS :- In this crime, there are two victims. The accused is none other than their father. The father (accused) at the time of the incident was serving as a Teacher. The mother (PW2) is also working as a Teacher at Janata Vidyalaya, Nagbhid. Victim no.1 at the time of the incident was 17 years and 3 months old and victim no.2, her younger sister, was 14 years and 6 months old. 3. The report of the incident was lodged by victim no.1, who is PW3, on 28.07.2019 at Police Station, Nagbhid, district Chandrapur. The case of the prosecution, which is evident from the report (Exh.26) is that on 27.07.2019 at about 7.30 am, victim no.1 (PW3) went to attend her college. Her mother (PW2) went to attend her duties at school at 10.00 am. Victim no.2 also went to the school at 11.00 am. Victim no.1 returned from the school and was alone at the house. It is the case of the prosecution that at about 12.30 pm, the accused came to the house on his motorcycle and asked victim no.1 about the keys of Scooty moped. Victim no.1 handed over the keys of the Scooty to the accused and enquired as to where he was going. It is the case of the prosecution that at about 12.30 pm, the accused came to the house on his motorcycle and asked victim no.1 about the keys of Scooty moped. Victim no.1 handed over the keys of the Scooty to the accused and enquired as to where he was going. The accused replied that he was going to repair the Scooty moped. Victim no.1 told the accused to come back early because she had to go to Bramhapuri for her medical treatment. The accused told her that he would drop her at the bus stand. It is stated that at that time, the accused returned inside the house from main gate and asked the victim to give his ‘lungi’. Victim no.1 could not found the ‘lungi’ and gave him a towel. She started her work on computer. It is alleged that after some time, the accused came from behind victim no.1 and started moving his hand on her back. She shut down the computer and stood up. The accused caught hold of her and offered Rs.100/- or Rs.200/- to her as a reward for allowing him to have sexual intercourse with her. Victim no.1 resisted and told him that she would call the neighbouring aunty. The accused, therefore, left victim no.1. The accused thereafter dropped her at Ram Mandir chowk bus stop and she went to Bramhapuri. The maternal uncle (PW8) of the victim nos.1 and 2 was residing at Bramhapuri. The victim went to her maternal uncle’s house. She narrated the incident to the maternal uncle. She also told her maternal uncle that in the past, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. The accused had threatened to kill her in case it was disclosed to anybody. It is stated that due to fear of the accused, victim no.1 did not disclose the incident to anybody. 4. Victim no.1 in her report has further stated that one year prior to this incident, when she came back to the house, she saw the accused committing sexual intercourse with her sister (victim no.2). Victim no.1 at that time enquired with victim no.2 about the incident. Victim no.2 told her that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her by extending a threat to kill her. According to the prosecution, on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 pm, the accused attempted to commit sexual intercourse with victim no.1. Victim no.1 at that time enquired with victim no.2 about the incident. Victim no.2 told her that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her by extending a threat to kill her. According to the prosecution, on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 pm, the accused attempted to commit sexual intercourse with victim no.1. She narrated the incident to her maternal uncle (PW8). Her maternal uncle called her mother and younger sister at Bramhapuri. Victim nos.1 and 2, at that time narrated the incident occurred with them to their mother (PW2) and maternal uncle (pw8). Victim no.1, therefore, lodged report (Exh.26) at Police Station, Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur. 5. On the basis of report (Exh.26), a crime bearing No. 267/2019 was registered against the accused. PW10 is the Investigating Officer. She carried out investigation in the crime. The victims were sent to the Medical Officer (PW5) for examination. The IO collected the articles and the samples. The samples were sent to the CA for analysis. The statements of the victims were recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 6. Learned Special Judge, framed Charge (Exh. 5) against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. His defence is of false implication on account of his strained relations with his wife (PW2). Similarly, it is his defence that his brother-in-law had a grudge against him because he had purchased his house for Rs.20 lakhs and it was his contention that he paid Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) less than the market price. On that count, there was quarrel between him and his wife and his brother-in-law on the other hand. It is further his defence that on 27.07.2019, victim no.1 was studying in 12th standard. He had noticed that victim no.1 used to talk with her boy friend on mobile phone. He gave an understanding to her. Victim no.1 thought that the accused has become an obstruction in her love life. According to the accused, two days prior to the incident, he gave an understanding to victim no.1 and her boy friend. Her boy friend misguided victim no.1. They all conspired and filed a false report against him. 7. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. Learned Special Judge, on consideration of the evidence found the accused guilty of the charges and sentenced him as above. Her boy friend misguided victim no.1. They all conspired and filed a false report against him. 7. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. Learned Special Judge, on consideration of the evidence found the accused guilty of the charges and sentenced him as above. The appellant/accused has field this appeal challenging the said judgment and order. 8. I have heard Mr. S. K. Patil, learned advocate for the appellant and Mrs. M. R. Kavimandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1/State. Perused the record and proceedings. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Patil for the appellant/accused submitted that there are material omissions, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of victim nos.1 and 2 as well as their mother and maternal uncle on the point of actual occurrence of the incident and involvement of the accused. Learned advocate would submit that the evidence of victim nos.1 and 2 is not trustworthy and believable. Learned advocate took me through the evidence of victim nos.1 and 2 and pointed out that on material points they have contradicted each other. Learned advocate pointed out that victim no.1 has improved her statement before the Court and the omissions as to the material facts missed by her while lodging report (Exh.26), have been proved. Learned advocate took me through the history of assault narrated by victim nos.1 and 2 at the time of their medical examination and pointed out that it is inconsistent with the very core of the evidence of victim nos.1 and 2. Learned advocate submitted that if the accused had committed such a heinous crime with them, then victim nos.1 and 2 would have definitely disclosed the same to their mother. Similarly, they would have shared it with each other. Learned advocate submitted that according to victim no.1, for five years prior to lodging of the report, in every month the accused sexually abused her. Victim no.2 has stated that one year prior to the incident, she was sexually abused by the accused. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence of victim nos.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of her mother (PW2) and maternal uncle (PW8) is highly unbelievable. Learned advocate submitted that the father, who is a Teacher, would not have committed such an act with his two daughters. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence of victim nos.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of her mother (PW2) and maternal uncle (PW8) is highly unbelievable. Learned advocate submitted that the father, who is a Teacher, would not have committed such an act with his two daughters. It is pointed out that the family is an educated family and therefore, the daughters would not have hesitated to disclose such an act at the hands of the accused to their mother, who is a Teacher. Learned advocate submitted that the defence of the accused is consistent and the material on record is sufficient to probabalise the defence. Learned advocate submitted that a serious doubt has been created about the case of the prosecution against the accused. Learned advocate submitted that learned Special Judge has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and has come to a wrong conclusion. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that victim nos.1 and 2 would not have falsely implicated their father. Learned APP submitted that the victim and their mother in the ordinary circumstances would not have made such false allegations against the accused. Learned APP pointed out that reporting such a matter to the police by the victims/daughters against their father, would have defamed them and family in the society. Reporting of such an incident and thereby bringing it in public domain, with certainty, would have jeopardised the future of the daughters. Learned APP submitted that in order to take revenge, they could have reported any other matter or incident to the police to falsely implicate the accused, but they would not have involved their father in such crime. Learned APP submitted that the omissions and inconsistencies are not material and on the basis of the same, no dent has been caused to the core of the evidence of victim nos.1 and 2. Learned APP submitted that at the time of medical examination of victim nos.1 and 2, their hymen were found to be torn. Learned APP pointed out that the old hymen torn of the victims corroborated their contention that the accused committed repetitive sexual intercourse with them. Learned APP further submitted that the mother of the victims, who herself is a Teacher, would not have taken a risk to jeopardise the future of the victims. Learned APP pointed out that the old hymen torn of the victims corroborated their contention that the accused committed repetitive sexual intercourse with them. Learned APP further submitted that the mother of the victims, who herself is a Teacher, would not have taken a risk to jeopardise the future of the victims. Learned APP, in short, submitted that learned Special Judge has properly appreciated the evidence and a well reasoned judgment does not require interference. 11. Learned Special Judge, on scrutinizing the available evidence on record, has held the accused guilty. In my view, in such a case, great care and caution is required to be taken by the Court. The evidence on record must be of sterling quality to satisfy the Court. The evidence must be found to be truthful and credible. The evidence on record must dispel the possibility of false implication of the accused in any manner. The father on the date of the incident was a Teacher. The mother is also a Teacher. In the year 2019, victim no.1 was studying in 12th standard and victim no.2 was studying in 10th standard. The family is an educated family. Keeping in mind the relations between the parties, the Court has to take proper care while appreciating the evidence to arrive at a just conclusion. In such a case, the Court is required to tread a very delicate path. The appreciation of evidence should not leave any manner of doubt in the mind of the Court as to the involvement of the accused to convict him. But, if there are major lacunae, omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence, then in that event the Court needs to be careful and circumspect in relying on such evidence. The evidence which is full of missions, inconsistencies and contradictions, may trigger the suspicion of implication of the accused in the crime. Such evidence cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The criminal trial is a serious matter. The prosecution is duty bound to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such a matter, where the daughters and father are involved, extra care is required to be taken while dealing with the same. The Court has to ensure that the daughters, who have come forward to report the matter against their father, should not be termed as liars without reasons. In such a matter, where the daughters and father are involved, extra care is required to be taken while dealing with the same. The Court has to ensure that the daughters, who have come forward to report the matter against their father, should not be termed as liars without reasons. Similarly, the accused, who at the relevant time was their guardian, should not be looked at with suspicion in the absence of concrete and cogent evidence to prove his involvement. 12. As far as the evidence of the age of victim nos.1 and 2 is concerned, the prosecution has proved by leading oral and documentary evidence that on the date of the incident i.e. 27.07.2019, victim no.1 was 17 years and 3 months old and victim no.2 was 14 years and 6 months old. Learned Special Judge has properly appreciated the evidence. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove that on the date of the incident, both the victims were below the age of 18 years. 13. The next important point is whether the prosecution on the basis of the evidence has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or not ? It is, therefore, necessary to minutely peruse and scrutinize the evidence of the witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence, the Court must be satisfied that the evidence is of sterling quality to inspire confidence and base the conviction on such evidence. 14. Victim no.1 is PW3. The report lodged by victim no.1 is at Exh.26. It is evident on perusal of the report and her evidence that at the time of her evidence, she improved her version on material facts. In her report, she has stated about the incident occurred on 27.07.2019. It is not her case that on 27.07.2019, her father sexually assaulted her. It is her case that her father moved his hand on her back and expressed his desire to have sexual intercourse with her, but she did not respond. She has stated that prior to 27.07.2019, once in a month, in the absence of other family members, her father would sexually assault her and threaten her not to disclose it to her mother or any other person and therefore, on account of the threat, she did not disclose the incident to anybody. She has stated that prior to 27.07.2019, once in a month, in the absence of other family members, her father would sexually assault her and threaten her not to disclose it to her mother or any other person and therefore, on account of the threat, she did not disclose the incident to anybody. She has stated that one year prior to this incident, when she came back to the house from school, she found her father and younger sister in a compromising position. At that time, she enquired with her sister (victim no.2) and her sister told her that her father forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anybody. This is the sum and substance of the report (Exh.26). 15. Victim no.1, in her examination-in-chief has stated that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her prior to five years of 2019. She has stated that when she was in 11th standard, the accused sexually abused her. She has further stated that in the year 2019, when she was taking rest at home, the accused came from the college and committed sexual intercourse with her. It is stated that it was prior to 27.07.2019. She has deposed about the incident with her sister. In her evidence she has stated that on 27.07.2019, her father moved his hand on her back and expressed his desire to commit sexual intercourse with her, but she did not respond. It is not her case that her father tried to forcibly commit intercourse with her or prevented her in any manner from going out of the house. On the contrary, her evidence would show that after this incident, her father went to the shop, brought the moped and dropped her at the bus stand to go to Bramhapuri. It is not her case that on the way to the bus stand, her father threatened her of dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to her mother or any other person. 16. In the cross-examination of victim no.1, the accused had put his defence to her. She has denied all the suggestions put to her. In her cross- examination, she has admitted that she has a skin disease and she used to go to Bramhapuri every Saturday for treatment. She has stated that her maternal uncle (PW8) used to take an appointment with the Doctor. She has denied all the suggestions put to her. In her cross- examination, she has admitted that she has a skin disease and she used to go to Bramhapuri every Saturday for treatment. She has stated that her maternal uncle (PW8) used to take an appointment with the Doctor. The evidence of victim nos.1 and 2 would show that they were in constant touch and contact with their maternal uncle. In fact, it has come on record in their evidence that their father (accused) had used his good offices to get a job for the maternal uncle (PW8). In cross-examination of victim no.1, the omissions have been proved. The omissions are not only from the report, but also from her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She could not offer any reason for the absence of those facts in her report as well as her statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she could not assign any reason as to why all these omitted facts did not find place in her report as well as 164 statement. The omissions have been proved through the Investigating Officer (PW10). PW10 has categorically stated that all the facts which are proved to be omissions, were not stated by victim no.1 at the time of lodging report (Exh.26) as well as at the time of recording her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. 17. Victim no.1 was examined by the Medical Officer (PW5) on 29.07.2019 at 3.00 a.m. The history of assault narrated by her was recorded by the Doctor. While narrating the history, she has stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by her father 5-6 times over a period of five years and the last such intercourse was one month back. This history of assault narrated by victim no.1 is totally inconsistent with her evidence. She did not state in her report that in last five years prior to lodging the report, she was being sexually abused by her father. She has stated in the report (Exh.26) that once in a month her father would commit sexual intercourse with her. In the history of assault narrated to the Doctor, she has stated that 5-6 times over a period of last five years, her father sexually assaulted her and the last such assault was one month back. She has stated in the report (Exh.26) that once in a month her father would commit sexual intercourse with her. In the history of assault narrated to the Doctor, she has stated that 5-6 times over a period of last five years, her father sexually assaulted her and the last such assault was one month back. In her evidence before the Court, she has stated that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her prior to five years of 2019. She has not stated that 5-6 times over a period of five years, she was sexually abused. Similarly, she has not stated in the evidence before the Court that her father committed sexual intercourse with her. In my view, this vital and important fact would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is one more vital and important fact, which is evident from perusal of the evidence of victim no.1. In my opinion, this fact will go to the root of the matter. In her evidence as well as in 164 statement, victim no.1 has stated that one year prior to 27.07.2019, one day when she came back from school, she found her father and her sister in a compromising position. She has stated that her father was committing intercourse with her sister. In order to test her veracity, it would be necessary to see the evidence of victim no.2 (PW4) and her mother (PW2). 18. Victim no.2 is PW4. She is conspicuously silent about occurrence of such an incident. She has stated in her evidence that when she was alone at house, her father came to house and attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. She resisted him and not allowed him to commit physical relation with her. She has stated that at that time her sister came to the house. On inquiry by the sister, she narrated the incident to her. She has categorically stated that she told her sister that the accused had attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The evidence of victim no.1/informant is totally contradictory to this evidence of victim no.2. She has exaggerated this incident. In this context, it would be necessary to see the evidence of the mother (PW2). 19. She has categorically stated that she told her sister that the accused had attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The evidence of victim no.1/informant is totally contradictory to this evidence of victim no.2. She has exaggerated this incident. In this context, it would be necessary to see the evidence of the mother (PW2). 19. It is not the case of PW2 mother that either victim no.1 or victim no.2, at any point of time prior to 27.07.2019, disclosed any such heinous act by their father with them. She has stated that on 27.07.2019, when she came back from her school, victim no.1 was not at house. Victim no.2 alone was at house. She thereafter made a phone call to her brother at Bramhapuri and enquired whether victim no.1 had come to his house or not. She has stated that on 28.07.2019, her brother made a phone call to her and called her and victim no.2 at T-point at Nagbhid. PW2 went there and at that time, victim no.1 was weeping. Victim no.1 narrated the incident to her. In her further evidence, PW2 has stated that victim no.1 told about occurrence of the incident with her as well as she told that she saw the accused and victim no.2 in the bed room in compromising position. She has stated that when victim no.1 enquired from victim no.2, she told her that whatever narrated by victim no.1 was correct. Victim no.2 has stated that she did not state that any such incident occurred with her. However, she has stated that prior to the incident, she was sexually assaulted, but date and time of such incident is not stated. Therefore, on this material point, there are inconsistencies in the evidence of victim no.1 on one hand and victim no.2 and her mother on the other hand. 20. It would be necessary at this stage to consider the evidence of victim no.2, who has been examined as PW4. She has stated that when she was in 10th standard, her sister lodged report against her father. She has stated that one year prior to 27.07.2019, she was not well and therefore, she was at home. Her mother had gone to the school and her sister was out of the house. She has stated that at that time, the accused attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that one year prior to 27.07.2019, she was not well and therefore, she was at home. Her mother had gone to the school and her sister was out of the house. She has stated that at that time, the accused attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that one day when her elder sister was not well, she was admitted in the hospital at Nagbhid in the night. She has stated that the mother was in the hospital in the night. She has stated that at that time, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. This incident was not narrated by victim no.2 to her mother as well as victim no.1 (PW3). She has stated that on 28.07.2019 in the morning her maternal aunt had made a phone call to her. She has stated that the maternal aunt enquired with her whether the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that she narrated the incident to her maternal aunt. She has further stated that thereafter on the say of the maternal uncle, she and her mother went to the T-point at Nagbhid. In her cross-examination, she has stated that after arrest of her father, she along with her mother and elder sister are residing together. She has stated that she does not want to see her father and does not wish to talk to him. She has denied all the suggestions consistent with the defence of the accused put to her in cross-examination. 21. Perusal of the evidence of victim no.2 (PW4) shows that it is full of omissions and inconsistencies. The majority of the facts, which have been proved to be the omissions, had not been stated by her while recording her statement by police as well as recording her statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. In her 164 statement, she has contradicted the version of her sister (victim no.1) and the statement of her mother (PW2) as to the first incident. She has stated in her 164 statement that when her sister was admitted in the hospital, she was alone at the house and at that time her father committed intercourse with her. She did not narrate such an incident to her mother. The mother (PW2) is silent about narration of such an incident to her by the victim in her evidence. She did not narrate such an incident to her mother. The mother (PW2) is silent about narration of such an incident to her by the victim in her evidence. Perusal of the evidence of victim no.2 (PW4) in totality would show that there are major omissions and inconsistencies in her evidence as to the main incident. Her evidence would show that one year prior to 27.07.2019, she was sexually assaulted by her father. She did not narrate the incident to anybody because she thought that nobody would believe her since her father was involved in the assault. She had otherwise no reason to narrate the incident to victim no.1. 22. Victim nos.1 and 2 are the main witnesses of the prosecution. Their evidence is the foundation of the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the mother (PW2) is not direct evidence. The mother has narrated the incident, which was told to her by victim no.1 and victim no.2. Same is the case with PW8 Mangesh Meshram, who is the maternal uncle of the victims. While appreciating the evidence of these witnesses, it is necessary to bear in mind certain attending circumstances. It is necessary to mention that if the incident as alleged had occurred, then the victim girls, who are well educated, would not have missed the sequence of the incident as well as the year, month and date of the incident. The mother (PW2) is a Teacher. She was residing with the victims. It has come on record that off and on the accused used to go to his native place and stay there. Victim nos.1 and 2, who were under constant gauge of the mother, would not have missed the opportunity to narrate such misdeeds of their father to her. It is further pertinent to mention that victim no.1 has stated that when she saw victim no.2 and her father in a compromising position, she made an inquiry with victim no.2 and victim no.2 narrated her plight to her. Undisputedly, this incident had occurred, as per the case of victim nos.1 and 2, one year prior to 27.07.2019. As per the evidence of the sister, they have suffered the misadventures of their father one year prior to the report. Victim no.1 stated that she had disclosed the misadventures of her father to victim no.2. Victim nos.1 and 2 appears to have completely kept each other in dark. As per the evidence of the sister, they have suffered the misadventures of their father one year prior to the report. Victim no.1 stated that she had disclosed the misadventures of her father to victim no.2. Victim nos.1 and 2 appears to have completely kept each other in dark. It is to be noted that if they had come to know about the misadventures of their father, then they would have confided with each other. Similarly, without wasting any time, they would have disclosed it to their mother. Their silence for years together is, in my view, against the case of the prosecution. It needs to be mentioned that when the father is involved in such an incident of heinous nature, the daughter would not hesitate to narrate such an incident to her mother. 23. In this case, the parents are educated. The girls had attained the age of understanding. They had freedom from their parents. It is not the case of either victim no.1 or victim no.2 that their father (accused) in any manner curtailed their freedom. It is the defence of the accused that when he noticed that victim no.1 was constantly in touch with one boy, he questioned her. He had called the said boy and victim no.1 together and given them understanding. He has stated that victim no.1, on being confronted with this situation and being satisfied that her father was thorn in flesh while moving ahead with love life with the said boy, planned this story. In my view, in this case, minute scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence is necessary. In such a case, on careful and minute scrutiny, the Court has to separate the grains from the chaffs and find out the truth. The Court is required to be very careful while treading a difficult path in such a matter. The Court has to balance the scale. The Court has to find out the truth. In my view, in this case, the evidence of the victim nos.1 and 2 is full of omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies. If the incident had occurred as narrated by the victims, then they were not bound to commit such mistakes while deposing before Court. In that case, they would have placed before the Court the stereotype version of the incident. There would not have been major inconsistencies in their evidence. If the incident had occurred as narrated by the victims, then they were not bound to commit such mistakes while deposing before Court. In that case, they would have placed before the Court the stereotype version of the incident. There would not have been major inconsistencies in their evidence. In this case, therefore, it is not possible to place implicit reliance on the evidence of victim nos. 1 and 2. The evidence, on minute scrutiny and appreciation, does not appear to be truthful. The narration of the account of the incident by victim nos.1 and 2 appears to be very unnatural. Their credibility has been shaken. Victim no.1 had no reason to complain for the first time on 27.07.2019, when she was not admittedly subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused on that day. In fact, she was dropped by the accused at the bus stop on motorcycle. In my view, therefore, the tainted evidence of victim nos.1 and 2 and the evidence of their mother and maternal uncle, has failed to pass the test of credibility. Their credibility has been completely shaken. The omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies go to the very root of the case of the prosecution. The core of the case of the prosecution has been sufficiently shaken as well as dented. A reasonable doubt has been created in the mind of the Court about the involvement of the accused in this crime. The accused has made his defence probable. There are major inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim girls. The major inconsistencies and overall doubtful evidence of the victim girls would be sufficient to create doubt in the mind of the Court. This doubt would certainly enure to the benefit of the accused. 24. As far as evidence of the Medical Officer (PW5) is concerned, the history of assault narrated by the victims to the Doctor is found to be inconsistent with their evidence before the Court. Victim no.2 has stated that her father (accused) for two times over a period of one year committed sexual intercourse with her and the last act was one year back. Her evidence is inconsistent. She has nowhere stated in her substantive evidence that on two occasions she was subjected to sexual intercourse by her father. Victim no.2 has stated that her father (accused) for two times over a period of one year committed sexual intercourse with her and the last act was one year back. Her evidence is inconsistent. She has nowhere stated in her substantive evidence that on two occasions she was subjected to sexual intercourse by her father. The Doctor in the local examination found that the hymen tear of victim nos.1 and 2 was old and has admitted that she could not determine the age of the old hymen tear. Even if it is assumed that the hymen of the victims had a tear, the same could not be attributed to the accused. There is no other scientific evidence against the accused. The report of the analysis of the samples is negative. The accused was not examined by the Doctor. No opinion has been obtained by the police as to whether he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. It has been suggested to the witnesses by the accused that on account of diabetes, he was not able to commit sexual intercourse and therefore, PW2 was not happy and on that count quarrel would occur between them. The evidence of the Medical Officer (PW5) per se would not be sufficient to conclude that the accused was responsible for the hymen tear of the victims. 25. On careful appreciation of the evidence, I am satisfied that there is ample material to doubt the veracity and credibility of the evidence led by the prosecution as to the involvement of the accused in the matter. The maternal uncle appears to have dispute with the accused. Admittedly, the accused had purchased his house by borrowing a loan of Rupees Twenty lakhs. It is suggested that the maternal uncle had a grudge against the accused because he had paid Rupees Five lakhs less towards the price of the house. In this case, the main evidence of the prosecution i.e. evidence of victim nos.1 and 2, is found to be doubtful. It is not of a sterling quality to place implicit reliance. In view of this, I conclude that sufficient doubt has been created in the mind of this Court about involvement of the accused in the crime and truthfulness of the incident. Learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate all these facts and the material. It is not of a sterling quality to place implicit reliance. In view of this, I conclude that sufficient doubt has been created in the mind of this Court about involvement of the accused in the crime and truthfulness of the incident. Learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate all these facts and the material. The prosecution, on the basis of this shaky and doubtful evidence, has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 26. Learned Special Judge has observed in the judgment that the material on record is sufficient to trigger the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. In my view, the very edifice of the above finding would collapse, the moment a conclusion is arrived at that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not an absolute presumption. It is a rebuttable presumption. The presumption gets triggered only when the foundational facts are established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record must be sufficient to believe the case of the prosecution and thereby support the very foundation of the case of the prosecution. In this case, the very foundation of the case of the prosecution viz- a-viz the charge against the accused has been shaken. In my view, therefore, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would not get automatically attracted/triggered. The accused, therefore, is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 27. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. (i) The judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Special Judge, Chandrapur, dated 14.12.2022 in Special (POCSO) Case No. 50/2019 is quashed and set aside. (ii) Appellant – Ashok S/o Madhavrao Kulmethe is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Sections 376(1)(A) and 376(2)(f)(j)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Appellant – Ashok s/o Madhavrao Kulmethe is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other crime. 28. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.