The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ascertaining the juvenility of the accused and the need for early ascertainment of juvenility to reform the child. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the excessive detention of the accused, which exceeded the maximum permissible detention in special homes under the JJ Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. JOSHI, J.

1. The accused in Spl. Case No. 534/2019 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan, has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 13.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 14.6.2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act 2012’).

2. The brief facts of the case are as below:

Case of the prosecution is that PW5 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P18 stating that the accused knowing well that victim-PW4 is a minor, followed her and had developed love affair with her and since 6 months prior to the incident, accused was seducing her and had developed physical relation on 2-3 occasions under the false promise of marrying her. It was alleged that on 22.08.2019, the PWs. 5 and 6, who are the parents of the victim had gone to a marriage and the younger brother of the victim and the grandfather of the victim were in the house. It was alleged that during night, the accused had trespassed into the house of the victim girl taking advantage of the absence of PWs. 5 and 6 and slept with her and had sexual intercourse with her on 2-3 times till next day morning. It was alleged that on 23.08.2019, the CW.7-Subhan and CW.8-Gopinath saw the accused coming out of the house of the victim and informed it to the PWs. 5 and 6, who on their arrival came to know about the offence committed by the accused on the victim and then, they went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. The complaint was registered in Cr. No. 66/2019 of Hallikhed Police Station and investigation was launched.

3. During investigation, the CW.30 took up the investigation and he subjected the victim girl to the medical examination and did other formalities. On 26.08.2019, the further investigation was taken up by PW-7, who was working as a CPI at Basavakalayan. He arrested the accused on 27.08.2019, recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P37, seized the mattress from the house of the victim (M.O.14), obtained the medical certificate and arranged for recording of the statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also secured the photographs of the mahazar etc., from the PW-9 and sent the biological samples collected by the Medical Officer to the FSL. He also got prepared the spot sketch and recorded the statements of the witnesses and pending the receipt of the FSL report, a chargesheet was filed against the accused. Subsequently, on 22.10.2019, the District Court had ordered Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP for short) and accordingly, the victim and accused were produced before the Magistrate and the blood samples were obtained as required under law under memo as per Ex.P22. On 29.10.2019, the medical termination of the pregnancy was done at Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital, Bidar and the sample of foetus was collected and they were seized under the mahazar as per Ex.P23. Thereafter, he sent the samples for the DNA examination to the FSL. After obtaining the FSL report and also after obtaining the final report from the Medical Officers, the additional Chargesheet was submitted to the Special Court.

4. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences, the copy of the chargesheet papers was furnished to the accused and after hearing, the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 450 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed and the accused having pleaded not guilty, the case entered into trial. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 13 and Exs.1 to 38 and M.Os.1 to 14 were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the accused. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Special Judge and after hearing the arguments, the following points were raised by him:

“1. Whether the prosecution