JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

This appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 30.06.2012 passed in SC No.665/2011 on the file of Fast Track Court-XIII, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that; the accused on 18.03.2011 kidnapped the minor girl who is P.W.4, at about 6.30 p.m., when the victim girl P.W.4 and her sister P.W.3 were coming back to home. The accused who is working in a welding shop nearby the house of P.W.1 came in a red color Maruthi Car driven by other accused, called the victim and when the victim came near the accused, held her hand, forcibly pulled her inside the car and closed the window glass and instructed the driver to move immediately. When P.W.4 started screaming, the accused closed her mouth with his hands and threatened her that if she again makes any noise, he would kill her and thereafter, victim girl was taken to lodge by name Shri Comfort Lodge situate on the Kanakapura Main Road and committed rape on her in room No.101.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.3 who along with victim-P.W.4, came and told about the incident and immediately, P.W.1 had lodged complaint with the police and drew the mahazar. Thereafter, Police, who were deputed, apprehended the accused and the victim girl on the next day near Nagavara Ring Road signal and produced them before the police in the Station. They were subjected to medical examination and obtained the report. After collecting the date of birth of the victim girl from the school, statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet for the above offences.

4. The accused did not plead guilty and claim to be tried. Hence, the prosecution examined witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and relied upon Exs.P.1 to 10 and no material objects have been marked. The accused did not choose to lead evidence but filed his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The Court below after hearing the prosecutrix and also defence counsel, has acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal contending that the very judgment of acquittal is against the records and the trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence in the right perspective. The trial Judge ought not to have considered the minor discrepancies which do not go to the very root of the case of the prosecution. The Court should have considered the evidence of prosecutrix and medical evidence, to come to the conclusion that the victim girl was subjected to sexual act by the accused. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence particularly P.W.3 who was along with victim at the time of incident to prove the fact that the accused forcibly kidnapped the victim by pushing her inside the car and subjected her for sexual act. The other witnesses also supported the case of prosecution. In spite of sufficient material available before the Court, the Court below considering the minor discrepancies which are not fatal to the case of prosecution, erroneously acquitted the accused.

6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, in his arguments, vehemently contended that the trial Judge failed to consider the evidence of the victim who has been examined as P.W.4 and also the medical evidence produced before the Court to substantiate that she was subjected to sexual act which is also against her wish. The injuries found on the accused has not been explained by the accused in his 313 statement. Learned counsel also would contend that in the 313 statement, there is nothing but total denial. Hence, the trial Judge ought not to have acquitted the accused. The evidence available before the Court both oral and documentary evidence was not considered in right perspective and hence, the very judgment of acquittal is liable to be reversed