The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing a proper explanation for the delay in filing a complaint and highlights the rarity of false charges of rape.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

G.BASAVARAJA, J. - The State has preferred this appeal under Sec. 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., seeking to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 24/4/2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Dharwad in Spl.S.C.No.30/2017 and to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 24/4/2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge at Dharwad in Spl.S.C.No.30/2017 and convict the respondents/ accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 506, 448, 354(D), 376 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and under Sec. 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO Act').

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:

2.1. Prior to one year from 1/7/2017, the accused No.1, used to follow the victim girl, blow whistles, and use other means to pressurize her in one way or another to accept his love proposal.

2.2. On 1/7/2017, the accused No.1 came to the house of the victim girl from the back door by covering his face with a monkey cap, hugged the victim girl tightly, gagged a cloth into her mouth, dragged her to the kitchen, and committed forcible sexual assault on her, showing a knife and threatening to take away her life if she disclosed the said facts to anybody.

2.3. Then he tied her hands and legs with rope and escaped from there by hiding his face with a monkey cap. P.W.4 heard the screaming of victim, rushed to her and removed the tied rope and set free her hands and legs.

3. On 8/7/2017, respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 picked up a quarrel with C.W.10 and assaulted him with their hands. In this regard, the first informant lodged the complaint. After the completion of the investigation, I.O. charge-sheeted the accused for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss. 448, 506, 376, 354(D), 323, read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, and Ss. 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

4. After the filing of the charge sheet, the learned Spl. Judge has taken cognizance against the accused for the alleged commission of offenses. Accused No.1 to 3 have obtained bail, and copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the accused. On hearing, the Trial Court has framed the charges for the alleged commission of offenses; same was read over and explained to the accused, having understood the same, the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 24 witnesses as PWs.1 to 24, 22 documents were got marked as Exs.P.1 to 22 & 21 and material objects got marked as MOs.1 to 21. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the trial court has recorded the statements under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating evidence put to the accused. All the accused have totally denied the evidence appearing against them. However, they have not chosen to lead any defense evidence on their behalf. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the alleged commission of offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal against the respondents.

6. Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. SPP has submitted his arguments that:

6.1. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court are contrary to the law, facts, and evidence on record. 6.2. PW 1 is the victim girl, who is 13 years old; PWs.2 and 3 are the victim girl's parents; and PW 8 is a victim girl's relative. They have consistently and categorically stated about the sexual assault committed by accused No.1. The evidence of PW.1/victim girl is further corroborated by Ex.P.1-complaint and also Ex.P.3-statement recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC Court.

6.3. The Trial Court by giving much importance to the minor contradictions and omissions found in the evidence of these witnesses, has erroneously acquitted the respondents/ accuse