JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the accused against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 5(l) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State and perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

The victim P.W.1, a minor girl was studying in X Standard in Government High School, Bettadahalli and she used to go to her school by walk from her village, which is at a distance of about 4 kms. On her way to the school, she got acquainted with the accused and sometime, the accused used to drop her to school on his motorcycle. At that time, the accused used to force her to love him. The accused was a married man and he had driven his wife out of the house by illtreating her. On 24.03.2016, the accused took the victim to Bengaluru by threatening her and confined her in the house of his sister Nirmala for 15 days and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. He also tied a ‘Thali’ to her and later brought her to Chattanahalli village. The victim was staying in the house of accused and during her stay, accused was illtreating her physically and mentally and he was threatening her with dire consequences. Unable to bear the torture, the victim went to her parents house and stayed there for a period of about one month. However, since her neighbours started talking ill words against her, she again went and stayed in the house of accused. The accused was subjecting her to physical and mental harassment and therefore, on 16.12.2016, she went to Keresanthe to the house of one Lalita Bai, wherein she came to know that she was 3 months pregnant. Thereafter, her parents came in search of her and informed the incident to the District Child Protection Unit, Chikkamagaluru.

A complaint was lodged by the victim, which came to be registered in Crime No.229/2016 at Birur Police Station against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of IPC and under Section 5(l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act.

Before the trial Court, charges were framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to 23 and M.Os.1 and 2. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.

The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence and material on record, convicted and sentenced the accused. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal is preferred.

4. Assailing the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trail Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant is a neighbour of the victim girl. The victim had acquaintance with the accused and there was a love affair between them. She herself expressed her love towards him knowing the fact that he has deserted his wife. He submits that the entire story of the prosecution that the accused kidnapped the victim girl and committed forcible sexual intercourse is false and it is a cooked up story. He submits that even according to the prosecution, the victim went along with the accused and stayed in the house of his sister initially for a period of 15 days, which shows that the victim herself accompanied the accused and there was no threat or inducement. He submits that even according to the prosecution, the appellant has tied ‘Thali’ and married the victim girl and therefore, there is no question of committing any rape on the victim.

5. It