Point of Law : Trial Court had appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and also assigned justifiable and sound reasons in rendering the acquittal judgment. There is no perversity, absurdity or illegality to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. [Para 18]

JUDGMENT :

K. SOMASHEKAR, J.

1. In this appeal the appellant/State is challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C. No. 86/2015 dated 02.03.2017 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 342, 506 of IPC and Section 5(1) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In this appeal seeking to set-aside the judgment of acquittal by considering the grounds urged in this appeal and convict the accused for the offences which were leveled against him.

2. Heard learned HCGP for State and learned counsel for respondent No. 1/accused namely Sri Umesh P.B. Though notice has been served against respondent No. 2-Siddaraju, but remained absent. Perused the judgment of acquittal in S.C. No. 36/2015.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that accused is the neighbour in the locality where the complainant was also residing with her parents. He had fallen in love with the complainant and making her to believe that he would marry her, took her to his house and had physical contact with the victim when his parents were in the house. Despite of refusal, he had physical contact so many times by taking her to his house. The complainant/victim was under depression when the accused went back to Bangalore. Therefore, her parents took her to children help line. Before the officials of children help line, she had stated about the lover affairs and physical contact in between her and the accused.

4. It is further transpired in the case of the prosecution that based upon her statement before the lifeline, the police registered the case in Crime No. 35/2015 on 01.03.2015. On receipt of the complaint, the police recorded FIR and accused was apprehended and thereafter remanded to judicial custody. The accused and complainant had undergone medical examination in connection with the physical contact. The police secured all the required documents and laid the charge sheet before the Court having jurisdiction to proceed in further, in accordance with law. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet by the IO, accused was secured and after furnishing the copies of charge sheeted materials, the accused was put on trial and heard on charges on both sides. The charges were read over to the accused in the language known to him. But the accused did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of accused was recorded separately.

5. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution whereby examined the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for enabling him to record the incriminating statement appeared against him whereby the accused declined all the incriminating evidence let in against him by the prosecution. Accordingly, it was recorded. But the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. However, the accused was not inclined to lead any defence evidence, but got marked documents as per Ex.D1 to D5. Accordingly it was recorded.

6. Subsequent to completion of process relating to the evidence let in on both side whereby the trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and so also, the defense counsel. The trial Court by dwelling into the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who are the neighbourers, but these witnesses did not supported the case of the prosecution and they specifically stated that they do not know what transpired in between accused and the victim and they did not give any statement relating to the affairs in between the accused and the victim. PWs. 3 and 4 are the mahazar witnesses in respect of Ex.P3-spot mahazar which was conducted by the IO in the presence of the panch witnesses. They have identified the signature, but submitted that they do not know who have shown the spot and for what purpose mahazar has been drawn. Hence, they were treated as hostile.

7. PW-5 being the Doctor who was subjected to examination had stated that there we