Point of Law : Since said finding of Sessions Judge's Court is now proved to be erroneous and since prosecution has proved the alleged guilt of the accused for all the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, impugned judgment passed by Sessions Judge's warrants interference at the hands of this Court. [Para 55]

JUDGMENT :

The State has filed this appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C."), challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18-11-2013 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Gulbarga (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Sessions Judge's Court") in Sessions Case No.335/2012, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC").

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Sessions Judge's Court was that, the accused, who was a married person having wife and two children and a resident of the village of the complainant/victim, was asking her to have sexual intercourse with him and was always following her and used to threaten her. In the month of December 2011, on a day in the afternoon, when the other members of the family of the victim girl had been to their agricultural land for work, noticing that the complainant/victim was alone in her house, the accused barged into her house and caught hold of her, closed her mouth with the help of a cloth and assaulted her and committed rape upon her. Further, the accused threatened her of killing her in case if she revealed about the incident to anyone.

It is further the case of the prosecution that, subsequently, on many occasions, the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant by putting her under life threat. He used to further threaten her that in case if she reveals the same to anyone, he would take her to Mumbai and sell her to others. Due to such repetitive acts of rape by the accused upon her, the complainant (victim girl) got pregnant, which fact she had not disclosed to anyone. However, when she had been to the house of her aunt situated at a place called Honnakiranagi village, she developed severe pain in her stomach. Her aunt took her to the Hospital, where, after examination, the Doctor told her that the complainant/victim girl was pregnant of two and a half months. Later, at the request of her aunt, the Doctor medically terminated the pregnancy of the complainant. However, the parents of the victim girl came to know about the said fact of she becoming pregnant and the fact of medical termination of her pregnancy. Thereafter, the parents of the victim convened a Panchayat in the village. Though the accused did not attend the said Panchayat, but his parents, who attended the Panchayat, before the elders in the village, agreed to perform the marriage of the victim girl with their son, i.e. the accused-Sharanu @ Sharanappa. It was also agreed that their marriage to be registered in the Office of the Registrar of Marriages at Kalaburagi (then Gulbarga). However, the accused failed to come to Kalaburagi and failed to marry her. On the other hand, the accused threatened the victim girl and her family members stating that, he would burn them by setting their house on fire. It is on the above lines, the complainant/victim girl lodged a complaint with the appellant-Police on the date 03-04-2012. After registering the same, in their Station Crime No.104/2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 376 and 506 of the IPC, the appellant-Police conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 376 and 506 of the IPC.

3. In order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all fourteen (14) witnesses as PW-1 to PW-14 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-15(a) and produced Material Objects MO-1 to MO-6. From the accused’s side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits.

After hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge’s Court, by its judgment dated 18-11-2013, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 506 of the IPC. Challenging the same, the State has preferred the present