The age of the victim is crucial in sexual offense cases; if the victim is a minor, consent is legally irrelevant. Conviction under POCSO Act and IPC was affirmed based on credible witness testimonies and age determination rules.

JUDGMENT :

This is State’s appeal challenging impugned judgment dated 04.10.2016 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru in S.C. No.25/2014 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 , 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘POCSO Act’).

2. We refer to the parties as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of prosecution that PW-1, the victim girl is daughter of PW-2/C.Rangaswamy and CW-3/Smt. Rathnamma. PW-2/Rangaswamy along with his family members was residing in a flat constructed by Slum Board. PW-2 is an illiterate and the victim girl is said to be studied only upto 6th Standard in Kumbaru Koppalu Government Primary School. It appears that accused is also residing in the same locality along with his parents and he was working as mason.

4. It is the case of prosecution that on 13.10.2013 at about 6.30 pm, when PW-2 and CW-3 were not at home, the victim/PW-1 went to fetch water from public tap situated nearby house of accused No.1. At that time, accused No.1 came in a motorcycle belonging to PW-9, Yogesha, Son of Papaiah and approached PW-1 to come along with him in the said motorcycle. When PW-1 started inquiry, accused No.1 told her that if she does not sit on the motorcycle quietly, he would commit suicide by consuming poison. Due to the said threat, she sat on the motorcycle as a pillion rider. The accused No.1 took her to Gaddige village of Hunasuru Taluk to the house of PW-4, Lokesha, Son of Venkataiah, who appears to be near relative of accused No.1. Both PW-1 and accused No.1 stayed in the said house for two days. On 15.10.2013, both PW-1 and accused went to Kittooru village of Piriyapatna Taluk and accused No.1 stayed in the house of PW-8 Ramachandra, Son of Venkataiah, who also appears to be relative of accused No.1. In the said house also due to force of accused No.1 she had to stay for three days. On 18.10.2013, both accused and PW-1 came to Mysuru and they wandered here and there till evening. Thereafter, accused No.1 returned motorcycle to CW-13 and boarded a bus going to Hullahalli. In Hullahalli also, due to force of accused No.1, she had to stay in the house of PW-3/ Smt.Venkatalakshmi, Wife of late Venkatesh for three days. Thereafter, accused No.1 again took PW-1 to the house of PW-8/Sri.Ramachandra and they stayed in the said house for three days. Thereafter, on 24.10.2013, accused No.1 and PW-1 came to Mysuru and went to a park situated in Akashvani Circle.

5. Accused No.2 being a younger brother of accused No.1 had been informing from time to time about development regarding missing of PW-1 from her house and action taken by her parents and informed accused No.1 to change the places so as to avoid arrest by the police. He had also informed accused No.1 that on 24.10.2013, a missing complaint was lodged by PW-2 in the jurisdictional police station. It appears, he obtained signature of victim forcefully, on a blank white paper informing her that the complaint filed by her father would be withdrawn by giving in writing that she was not kidnapped by accused. Thereafter, when the victim came to park situated in Akashvani Circle, accused Nos.2 to 7 threatened her and forced her to state certain information before the Police, to prevent arrest of accused No.1, f