The court ruled that inconsistent evidence and lack of corroboration necessitated acquittal for severe charges while upholding convictions for lesser offences.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.

The State as well as the accused have filed these appeals challenging the judgment and order dated 08.04.2014 passed in S.C.No.10/2012, by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur.

2. The learned Sessions Judge, by impugned judgment was pleased to acquit accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offence punishable under Section 366-A read with Section 34 of IPC, accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 of the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) of IPC.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional SPP for the State and perused the evidence and materials on record.

5. It is the case of prosecution that, on 01.01.2011 at about 11 a.m., in land bearing Sy No.312/A of Maladkal Village, accused No.1 forcibly took the victim (PW1) to have illicit intercourse with her and accused Nos.2 to 4 with a common intention, helped accused No.1 and all the accused took her in a Tata ACE vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 36 A 726 to Devadurga by threatening her with dire consequences if she raised alarm and then on 02.11.2011 at about 1 p.m., took her to Naregaon in Puna town and confined her in a temporary shed bearing No.102, wherein, accused No.1 committed rape on her and thereby committed the charged offences.

6. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 366-A read with Section 34 of HC-KAR IPC, Accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.

7. To establish the charges leveled, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW21 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1 to D5 were marked i.e., portion of the further statement of PW1 and statement of PW8.

8. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence and materials on record, came to the conclusion that, the charges leveled against accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 366A read with 34 of IPC and against accused No.1 under Section 376 of IPC and against accused No.1, 3 and 4 under Section 506 read with 34 of IPC are not proved. However, held accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

9. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that the victim was not a minor as on the date of commission of the offence and there are different versions given by the prosecution relating to her age and if her HC-KAR evidence is appreciated, it can be clearly seen that there was consent on her behalf and she willingly accompanied the accused and therefore, no offence as alleged by the prosecution is made out. It is also contended that the Trial Court has given valid reasons to come to a conclusion that the offences under Section 376 of IPC against accused No.1 and Section 366-A of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 4 are not proved, however, erred in convicting for the offence punishable under Section 363 and 506 of IPC. He further contended that the evidence of the victim examined as PW1 suffers from serious infirmities, contradictions and improvements and there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and further, the medical evidence do not support the case of the prosecu