The appellate court upheld the victim's minority and the accused's guilt for kidnapping and sexual assault, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn acquittals.

JUDGMENT :

H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.

1. The State has filed this appeal under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2017, passed by the L Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘Special Court’) in S.C. No. 101/2017, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘the IPC’) and under Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet is that, the accused-respondent No. 1, on the date 30.09.2016, at about 2.30 p.m. from Vasanthanagar within the limits of the complainant police station - High Grounds, kidnapped the daughter of PWs 1 and 3, who is PW-2 (henceforth referred to as ‘victim girl’) knowing fully well that she was minor in her age and by taking her with him to Siddapura of Yadagiri District made her to believe that he is going to marry her and against her will and consent, he subjected the said victim girl, to repeated sexual intercourse and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. The same was registered by the complainant Police Station in Crime No. 157/2016 against the accused. After completing the investigation, the complainant Police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

3. After perusing the materials placed before it and hearing both side, the Special Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held, wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all twelve (12) witnesses as PW-1 to PW-12, got produced and marked documents from Exs.P.1 to P.20(a) and got produced nine Material Objects at MO-1 and MO-9. From the accused side no witnesses were examined, and one document was got marked as Ex. D.1.

4. After hearing both side, the Special Court, by its judgment dated 06.12.2017, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. Challenging the same, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

5. The appellant-State is represented by the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and respondent No. 1/accused and respondent No. 2, the defacto complainant are represented by their respective learned counsels. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 are physically appearing in the Court.

6. The Special Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the Special Court records.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Special Court.

9. Learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the appellant in his argument submitted that victim was minor as on the date of the alleged offence. Her SSLC Marks Card which is at Ex.P.3 and the date of Birth Certificate at Ex.P.8 clearly establishes that the victim girl was minor in her age. Even Rule-12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Rules, 2007 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘J.J. Rules 2017’) also requires to be believed and to consider matriculation certificate which is available as the most preferred document to prove the age of the alleged minor. However, the trial Court failed to notice this aspect and did not consid