The prosecution failed to establish the victim's age under POCSO Act, rendering the conviction invalid due to insufficient evidence and procedural errors.

JUDGMENT :

R. NATARAJ, J.

1. The accused in Spl.S.C.No.39/2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’ for short) has filed this appeal challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’ for short).

2. The case of the prosecution was that PW.1 informed the respondent in writing on 08.04.2015 that on 06.03.2015, at about 08:30 a.m. when the victim was on her way to attend nature call, the accused held her and tried to drag her. It is alleged that the residents of the village extricated the victim from the clutches of the accused. He therefore requested the respondent to initiate suitable action against the accused. Based on this information, the respondent-Police registered FIR in Crime No.37/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 323 , 354B and 509 of IPC and took up investigation. The respondent-Police recorded the statement of the complainant, the victim, other residents of the village as well as the relatives of the victim and PW.7-Head Master of the school where the victim studied. The respondent then laid a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 354B, 509 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused obtained anticipatory bail. Upon his appearance before the trial Court, the accused was charged for offence punishable under Sections 8 & 12 of POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined the complainant as PW.1. He in his cross- examination deposed that the accused and the victim were in love with each other and that the marriage of the victim was fixed with a resident of Javoor village. He also admitted that the friend of the accused telephoned the people at Javoor and informed accused’s love with victim and as a result of which, the marriage was cancelled.

4. The victim was examined as PW.2. She too accepted that her marriage was fixed with a resident of Javoor village and that she was of marriageable age. This witness however, denied that the accused had telephoned the people at Javoor and had disclosed his love for the victim and as a result of which, her marriage was broken. However, she admitted that the family at Javoor had accepted that they had received a telephone call from the accused. She voluntarily stated that the accused has telephoned the people at Javoor village as a result of which her marriage was cancelled. She also deposed that the complaint was lodged on the next day of the incident. She also deposed that she did not go to the Police Station after the complaint was lodged.

5. The prosecution examined PW.3, one of the persons who had intervened and released the victim from the clutches of the accused. This witness also admitted the fact that the victim was to be given in marriage to a family in Javoor. This witness though supported the case of the prosecution, denied the suggestions made to him that the victim and the accused were in love with each other and that the marriage of the victim was broken due to a call made by a friend of the accused to the family at Javoor. This witness also stated that he visited the Police Station, the next date after the complaint was lodged and that a complaint was lodged after two or three days from the date of the incident. The prosecution also examined PW.4 who was the witness to the spot Mahazar.

6. PW.5 was the person who was accompanying PW.3 on the date of the incident a