Point of law: There can be no iota of doubt that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable, a conviction can be based. However, in the case on hand, the testimony of prosecutrix and other- witnesses and the material placed on record does not inspire confidence of the Court to hold that the prosecution has established the charges leveled against the accused

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal, Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2017/04.05.2017 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi in Special Case [POCSO] No.5/2014, convicting and sentencing the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 366, 372(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short] is under challenge.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel Sri. Mahantesh H. Desai, appearing for appellant and Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the entire material and evidence on record.

3. Brief facts;

The first informant Sri. Narasappa-P.W.1 is a resident of Aasar Mohalla, Chittapur. He has 4 daughters and one son. His daughter/victim is aged about 17 years and she is prosecuting her studies in II year PUC. On 10.11.2013, at about 8.00 p.m., after dinner she went out of the house to clean the plate, but did not return. Complainant-P.W.1 along with his wife-Mahadevi-P.W.3 and another daughter Rekha-P.W.14 went in search of her, but she was not traced. Thereafter, when he made enquiry with his neighbour Khairunbee-P.W.4, she informed him about seeing the victim/P.W.2 going in an autorickshaw towards the bus stand along with the accused/appellant. All of them went in search of her. However, she was not traced.

4. On a complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case was registered against accused/appellant in Crime No.149/2013 of Chittapur Police Station, Gulbarga District, for offence punishable under Section 366(A) of IPC. On registration of the case by P.W.10, spot mahazar was conducted. In the course of investigation, prosecutrix as well as the accused were traced in the house of one Rasoolmiya at Batagera village on 06.12.2013. Investigation was taken over by P.W.16-Investigation Officer. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed.

5. Before the Trial Court, charges were framed against the accused/appellant for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

6. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, got examined PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20. The accused got himself examined as DW.1.

7. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence and material on record, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and convicted for the other charged offences.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations against the appellant that by inducing the victim he kidnapped her and committed forcible sexual intercourse are all false. He contends that the case of the prosecution that the victim and the accused stayed in a house for more than 20 days itself shows that there was no force or threat or inducement. It is his contention that the Trial Court having acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, has erroneously convicted him for the other charged offences without there being sufficient material against him. He contends that the prosecution has failed to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of incident in question and the Trial Court has committed a grave error in relying upon the Study Certificate issued by PW.5 to hold that the victim was a minor aged below 18 years. He contends that the prosecution has not placed any reliable or authentic document to prove the age of the prosecutrix and also failed to confirm her age by medical examination and therefore, benefit of doubt has to go to the accused. He further contends that the fact that the prosecutrix herself went out of the house and stayed with the accused from 10.11.2013 to 06.12.2013, goes to show that there was consent on her part and she was not induced or threatened or detained by the accused. He therefore contends that in the absence of any sufficient material to prove the age of the prosecutrix, the Tr