The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt favors the accused, as established in this case due to significant inconsistencies and lack of supportive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

Assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 19.04.2017 in Spl.C.C. No.178/2013 on the file of L Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’ for short), the first informant is before this Court in this Criminal Appeal.

2. The case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 of IPC.

3. PW.4-the first informant, lodged report under Ex.P.4 stating that the accused had committed sexual assault on their minor child in the month of April, 2010; and again in the last week of May, 2012 and on 13^th June, 2012 at which time the child was 3 years and 10 months old.

4. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.26, marked documents at Exs.P1 to P.29 and the material objects as per MOs.1 to 10. The accused did not choose to lead evidence, but marked documents at Exs.D1 to D15.

5. The trial court concluded that the case stemmed from a misunderstanding between husband and wife. It noted that PW.4 instead of seeking immediate medical treatment for the victim (child) when the latter experienced pain, first approached NGO and then the doctor. The Court further observed that the doctor (PW.17), who examined the child, clearly deposed that the child was suffering from bacterial infection and in light of this diagnosis, the trial court opined that there was no necessity for PW.4 to consult Dr.Shaibya Saldana, thereby casting doubt on the credibility of PW.4. Regarding the incident dated 13.06.2012, the trial court took note of the statement of the housemaid-Geeta (who was not examined in the Court) that the accused was caring for the children and there were no any wrongdoings. Additionally, the Court found that PW.4’s intent appeared not to be for the welfare of the child or reconciliation with her husband, but rather to implicate the accused. It was observed that she used the child as a means to prevent the accused from leaving the country, taking assistance of individuals connected to NGOs including financial and other support. The trial court gave a finding that PW.4 had begun collecting the evidence even before lodging the complaint. On a comprehensive assessment of entire oral and documentary evidence, the court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri P.N. Hegde for the appellant, Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned SPP-II for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Sri P.N. Hegde, learned counsel submitted his written argument also.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial court findings that the complainant began collecting the evidence prior to the case registration reflected a misconstruction of her intent and a lack of sensitivity to the circumstances. Given that, the initial suspect was her husband-victim’s father it was but quite natural for the complainant to act cautiously. Her decision to take necessary steps, rather than immediately approaching the police, was a reasonable step to clarify her doubts, not a sign of malice or fabrication. It is argued that the accused sexually abused his minor child on multiple occasions, including a specific incident on 13.06.2012 and the abuse came to light through the victim’s statement and physical symptoms (such as genital redness and pa