Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20325-DB Court No. - 45 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 24 of 2025 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Babu Singh S/O Shri Ranjit Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor in SST No. 80075 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Babu Singh), whereby the learned court below has acquitted the accused person for the offence alleged under Section 377, 511 and 504 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act. 3. The present appeal has been presented with a delay of 56 days. Besides the issue of delay, it is noted, the prosecution story emerged that the accused person had forcibly taken away the victim (minor child) of six years to his dwelling house and committed act of unnatural sex on the child on 07.07.2018 at about 12:00 noon. It had resulted in tear injury being caused to the minor child leading to bleeding. The occurrence suffered by the minor was narrated by him to his parents. On that, an FIR was lodged on 07.07.2018 at Police Station - Sheohara, District - Bijnor at about 11:30 p.m. The medical examination of the victim was also conducted on the same day by Dr. Khalid Akhter (PW-7). 4. Besides the statement of the victim (PW-2), the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-3 (grandfather of the minor child) and PW-6 (grandmother of the minor child) to establish that they had seen the accused person carrying the minor child to his dwelling house. 5. During their cross-examination, PW-3 and PW-6 denied having seen the accused person carrying the minor child away (from the place where he was playing), to his dwelling house. As to the occurrence, besides testimony of the minor, there is no eye-witness account. In that narration, the learned court below has noted some inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement of the minor recorded during trial. Majorly, it has been noted, though the minor narrated that he had suffered injury in the occurrence as had led to tear wound suffered by him that caused bleeding on his undergarments, no corroborative evidence whatsoever of that fact was proven by the prosecution. In fact, PW-7 clearly disproved that vital part of the prosecution. He clearly stated, having examined the minor both internally and externally he found absolutely no evidence of any injury suffered by the minor in the occurrence. He further opined that no occurrence of the kind narrated by the prosecution had taken place. The slide report was also negative. 6. Therefore, the basic foundation of the prosecution story was disbelieved both as to the disappearance of the minor from the place where he was playing and also to the injuries suffered. That prosecution story became doubtful. Then, it is also not in doubt that the alleged blood stained clothes of the minor were not recovered. Therefore, no further investigation could have arisen on that count. 7. It is in that context that the learned court below has further noted that the fact that other prosecution witness PW-3 and PW- 6 denied having seen the accused carry away the minor in his dwelling house. 8. Insofar as PW-1 (father of the victim) is concerned, his narration was only based on hearsay inasmuch as admittedly he had gone to the forest to gather firewood. He learnt of the occurrence only through other persons after he returned in the evening. 9. To the extent, the learned court below has appreciated the entire material and evidence on record and thereafter disbelieved the prosecution story on a benefit of doubt, we find no error. Though it is true that the statement of the victim carries primacy in cases of sexual offences, at the same time, it is not the law that such a victim speaks gospel truth and that all other evidence must fade into insignificance though what is stated by such a witness is completely contrary to or at variance with the other material and evidence brought by the prosecution and though such narration finds no corroboration from other material and evidence led by the prosecution. The courts may remain vigilant before reaching a hurried conclusion as to the real occurrence. In the present case, the prosecution narrated that the victim child had been taken away by the accused and carried to his dwelling house and there the occurrence took place as had led to tear injuries being suffered by the minor child leading to bleeding on his undergarments. But that narration was found not proved to the extent the prosecution could led conflicted evidence as to the fact that the accused person had carried the minor child inasmuch as grandparents of the minor child PW-3 and PW-6 denied having seen the occurrence and further inasmuch as no injury whatsoever was found noted by the doctor who clearly opined there was no evidence of sexual offence on the minor child. We find no error has been committed by the learned court below in acquitting the accused person on a benefit of doubt. 10. Further inconsistencies exist inasmuch as initially the minor child narrated that he had told the occurrence to his parents but later he altered his stand that he had informed his mother. 11. Both for reason of delay and lack of merit, the present leave to appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Abhilash . (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad