The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, determining that the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, underscoring the importance of reliable evidence and procedural compliance in sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. The State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and order of Acquittal dated 07^th September, 2020 passed in Spl. Case No.31 of 2015 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 U.K. Karwar (Special Court for Trial of Cases Filed Under POCSO, Act) (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Police Inspector of Mundgod has submitted a Charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 417, 109, 312, R/w Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 , 6, 10, 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 who is son of aunt of complainant’s mother, being well aware that complainant is a minor, was in close acquaintance with her. Accused No.1 told the complainant that he will marry her and on 10^th December, 2012 in the house of complainant, abutting to the southern wall of the hall, committed repeated sexual assault on her, due to which complainant became pregnant. Accused 1 to 5 with an intention to deceive CWs1 & 10, made them to believe that marriage of the complainant would be performed with accused No.1 after complainant turning 18 and on that promise, on 21^st January, 2014 took the complainant to Sirsi Government Hospital and got terminated the pregnancy. Accused No.1, even after complainant becoming major, did not marry her. Accused 2 to 5 also not performed marriage of accused No.1 with complainant and thereby, cheated CWs1 & 10. Accused 6 & 7 told accused 1 to 5 to leave the village and thereby, committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 417, 109, 312 R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 4 , 6, 10 r/w 17 of POCSO Act.

5. After filing charge-sheet against the accused, cognizance was taken and case came to be registered in Special Case No.31 of 2015. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Having understood the same, accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution, in all, examined 27 witnesses as PWs.1 to 27 and got marked 38 documents as Exhibits P1 to P38 and also got marked 24 material objects as MOs1 to 24. During the course of cross- examination of PW22, one document came to be marked on behalf of accused as Exhibit D1.

7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the incriminating evidence appearing