The credibility of a child witness's testimony, when corroborated by medical evidence, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of culpable mental state under the POCSO Act places the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption.

JUDGMENT

B.A.Patil, J. - The appellant/accused is before this Court seeking the intervention in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2014/07.02.2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions (Special) Judge, Dharwad in Special SC No.10/2013.

2. We have heard Sri. Rajesh M. Bilki and the learned AGA Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, for the respondent-State by virtual hearing.

3. The gist of the case of the prosecution in brief is that, the complainant is the wife of the accused. Herself, her husband and the victim - the minor daughter aged about 9 years, used to stay at Gudenakatti village. It is further alleged that, the complainant got married to one Gurusiddappa and victim girl was born in the said wedlock. After some time Gurusiddappa deserted the complainant and her daughter and the complainant went to reside in her parental house at Navalgund. Accused was the nearest relative of the complainant and he offered to marry her and also agreed to treat the victim girl as her own daughter and the complainant got married with the accused and started to reside in Gudenakatti after marriage. The minor daughter has studied up to 3rd standard. Thereafter, the accused was proclaiming that the victim girl was not his daughter and she was not born to him and uttering such words, he was causing mental agony to the victim girl as well as the complainant.

4. It is further alleged that, on 05.05.2013 at about 11.00 am, the victim girl went to fetch water from the pond and once she brought the water in a pot and again went to bring the water for the 2nd time. She returned to home at about 12.30 pm by weeping and when the complainant and one more lady by name Yallamma, who has come to their house, questioned her as to why she is weeping. The victim girl explained that the accused after filling the water has taken her to the bund of the lake and in spite of her resistance and making hue and cry, he had sexually assaulted her and threatened her with life. Immediately along with the victim they came to the place where the accused is said to have sexually assaulted her and thereafter by consulting the elders, she filed the complaint on 07.05.2013.

5. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in crime No.63/2013. Thereafter after investigation charge sheet came to be filed. The learned Special Judge took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused and after following the formalities he heard the parties and framed the charges. The accused pleaded not guilty. He claimed to be tried and as such, trial was fixed.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, it got examined 17 witnesses and got marked 18 documents and 10 material objects. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him. He denied the same and he got examined DW1 and filed the written statement. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is material as against the appellant/accused and convicted him. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the appellant/accused is before this Court.

7. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is contrary to materials placed on record and the same is liable to be set aside. It is his further submission that the trial court basing upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 3, 4 and 5 has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. It is his further submission that the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 itself goes to show that there is no recent sexual assault committed by the accused. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is his further submission that, the evidence of the prosecution goes to sh