The court affirmed that repeated sexual intercourse with a minor under 18 years constitutes an aggravated offense under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, irrespective of consent claims, establishing the accused's clear culpability.

JUDGMENT :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Mahantesh H. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. The respondent No.2, though served with the notice of appeal did not appear before this Court.

2. Appellant is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) in Special Case (POCSO) No.18/2015 dated 7.12.2016 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, and sentenced as under:

“Accused person is sentenced to undergo S.I for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default S.I. for one year of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .

The sentence and in default sentence shall run concurrently.

Considering the nature of the offence an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded as a compensation to the victim girl acting under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and the accused person is directed to pay the said compensation to the victim girl.”

3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

Saidapur Police, Gurumitkal Circle, Yadgiri, submitted a charge sheet against the appellant alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 366-A , 376(2)(n), 344 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. Case of the prosecution unveils as under:

4.1. On 10.11.2014, the victim girl who was aged about 14 years was sleeping with the family members after having dinner. At about 2.00 am, accused is said to have visited the house and after awaking the victim girl, took her outside the house and then eloped her in his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-33/R-3940. Accused took the victim girl to Raichur and from there to G.Hanumanpura village.

4.2. In the house of one Moulabi, he hired a room for rent on the ground that he is working in Shakthinagar, Raichur and that victim-girl is his wife. So representing to Moulabi, accused had forcible sexual intercourse for a period of 21 days. When the matter stood thus, on 04.12.2014, Moulabi said to have told the victim-girl that she can attend the coolie work with her. On that day, the accused had kept the front door open. Taking advantage of the same, the victim-girl came back to her parents place in an auto rickshaw. After she revealed the sequence of events, complaint came to be lodged with Saidapur Police. Her statement was recorded by the Investigation agency in the pending complaint and thereafter, she was taken to the medical examination. Her statement was recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Accused/appellant was arrested and he was also subjected to medical examination and thereafter charge-sheet came to be filed.

5. The learned trial Judge framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution in all examined 24 witnesses and placed on record 23 documents and 06 material objects.

7. On conclusion of recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances that was found in the case of the prosecution evidence. He did not choose to place any evidence on record on his behalf and not placed any written submissions as is contemplated under Section 314 of Cr.P.C.

8. Thereafter, learned trial Judge he