Point of Law: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03/03/2020 passed by the Learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C. No.157/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code(for Short ‘IPC’) and Sections. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the ‘POCSO Act’), the appellant-State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal to grant leave to appeal as provided under Section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) interalia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent-accused.

2. The facts as per prosecution case are that the complainant and the victim are permanent residents of Jainkoppa village of Khanapur taluka. The young girl came home on January 5, 2018, at around 17.30, left her school bag there, and then proceeded to play with her friends near her school. The accused respondent called the victim girl by making hand motions while she was playing with her friends in Anganawadi ground. When she came there, the accused threatened CWs.14 to 17 and made them flee away before taking the victim girl away from the Anganawadi school. The accused /respondent then placed the victim girl on the ground, removed her undergarments, gagged her mouth to stop her from yelling, conducted a sexual assault, and criminally intimidated the victim girl to not disclose the same to anyone. Therefore, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 506, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The Complainant, mother of the victim girl CW.1-Meenakshi Vittal Takkekar, had lodged the complaint. Upon receipt of the complaint, the police registered the case in Crime No.13/2018 offenses punishable under Section 376, 506 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and submitted FIR to the Court on 10/01/2018 at 4.00 A.M. The accused was produced before the learned Magistrate on the same day and was remanded to judicial custody. The remand was extended from time to time till the disposal of the case. After filing the charge sheet, the Court has taken cognizance of the commission of the alleged offenses, and the case was registered in SC.No.157/2018. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges against the accused for the alleged commission of offenses. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and marked five material objects as M.Os.1 to 5. On the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused is questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the incriminating substances put to him, but he has not chosen to adduce any defense evidence on his behalf. On hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for commission of the offences punishable under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and u/s .376 of IPC, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal judgment, the appellant-State has preferred this appeal.

4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor forcefully submits that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has also not considered the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and when the prosecution has proved the case against the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC, the trial Court ought to have considered the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and also Section 376 of IPC and hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, Miss. Vaishali K Kaladagi, Amicus Curiae, submits that prima facia there is no evidence against the accused for the commission of the alleged offenses. The sessions judge has followed the principles of appreciation of evidence, wh