Insufficient evidence and doubts regarding consent led to the acquittal of the accused in a POCSO case, emphasizing the need for corroboration beyond the victim's statement.

JUDGMENT :

M. G. UMA, J.

The appellant being accused in Special Case (POCSO) No.31/2020, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge & FTC-I (POCSO), Kalaburagi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) is impugning the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2023, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 450 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’) and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act; sentencing to undergo imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC with default sentence.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, PW.1-the victim girl lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 448 of IPC and Sections 4 , 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act. On the basis of the same, the FIR came to be registered, investigation was undertaken. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above said offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 21, got marked Exs.P1 to P28 and identified MOs.1 to 10 in support of its contention. This accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, but he has not led any evidence in support of his defence. However, he got marked Exs.D1 to D9 during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

4. After taking into consideration all these materials on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused convicted and sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

5. Heard Sri. Mahantesh Desai, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Gopal Krishna B.Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and Sri.Ravi Bheemsingh Chawan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

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

“Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

7. My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

8. It is the contention of the prosecution that the informant-PW.1 is the victim girl aged between 14 to 17 years and the accused criminally trespassed into her house during early morning on 15.03.2020, committed the penetrative sexual assault and thereby committed the offences as stated above. According to the informant, that was not the first time when the accused came to the house and committed the offence, but 2 or 3 times earlier to the date of the first information, the accused had came to her house and committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly. However, the victim girl has not revealed this fact to her parents. On the early morning on 15.03.2020, when the accused was with the victim girl in her room, the mother of the victim girl heard some noise, came to her room and saw the accused. She caught hold of the accused and in