A minor cannot consent to sexual acts, and the court confirmed that the accused could not be convicted without substantive evidence against each individual, resulting in varied sentences for two accused based on their involvement.

JUDGMENT :

M G Uma, J.

The appellant in Crl.A.No.761/2020 being accused No.1 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.1990/2019 being accused No.2 in S.C.No.1252/2013, on the file of the learned LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH- 71), are impugning the judgment of conviction dated 19.11.2019 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2019, convicting them for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with the fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with the fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, with default sentences, while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Case or Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) (for short 'the SC & ST Act').

2. Brief facts of the case are that, PW1 being the father of the victim girl lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 stating that his minor daughter was found missing. During investigation, the minor daughter was traced. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences. Accused No.3 was absconding and split up charge sheet came to be filed against him.

3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the Trial Court and denied the charges leveled against them. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16, got marked Ex.P1 to 31 and identified MOs.1 to 7 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record came to the conclusion that accused No.1 kidnapped the victim girl who is a minor, aged 12 years with the help of accused No.2 and have criminally intimidated her. Accused No.1 took the minor girl to various places from 17.07.2013 till 22.07.2013 and committed penetrative sexual assault and thereby, they have committed the offences as stated above. Considering the materials on record, the Trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.761/2020, and accused No.2 has preferred Crl.A.No.1990/2019.

4. Heard Smt. Budrunnisa, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"

My answer to the above po