The prosecution must prove victim's age and corroborate claims of sexual assault to establish charges under the POCSO Act and IPC; failure to provide credible evidence warrants acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. MUDAGAL, J.

Challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in Spl.Case.No.120/2013 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur and Special Court for trial of cases under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, the State has preferred this appeal.

2. Respondent No.1 was sole accused. Respondent No.2 was PW.1/complainant in Spl.Case.No.120/2013 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. PW.2 is the daughter of PW.1, PW.5 is the wife and PW.3 is the brother of PW.1 and PW.4 is wife of PW.3. Accused was tried in Spl.Case.No.120/2013 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 4 50 , 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Madhugiri police in Crime No.34/2013 of their police station. Crime No.34/2013 was registered against the accused on the basis of complaint filed by PW.1 as per Ex.P1.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follow:

That on 06.03.2013 PW.2/victim was aged 15 years. Accused used to stalk her when she was going to school and used to eve-tease her. On 06.03.2013 at 6:30 p.m. when PW.2 was alone in her house situated at Hosahalli village, accused trespassed into the said house and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. By that time PWs.1 and 3 returned home. On seeing them the accused sped away. Based on the complaint/Ex.P1, investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448 , 376(2)(h) of IPC and Sections 3 (a) and 6 of POCSO Act.

5. The trial Court on hearing both side framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4 50 , 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore, trial was conducted.

6. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs.1 to 9 were marked. After his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused did not lead any defence evidence.

7. The trial Court on hearing both side, by the impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused on the ground that victim being aged below 18 years is not proved. The trial Court has further held that the allegation of accused committing force penetrative sexual assault is not proved. Challenging the said judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred the above appeal.

8. Heard both side.

Submissions of Smt. Sowmya R, learned HCGP for appellant/State:

9. Victim/PW.2 has supported the prosecution case and her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. The medical evidence shows that there was act of sexual intercourse. The fact of victim being aged below 18 years was proved by the evidence of PW.8 and Ex.P8. Under the circumstances, the trial Court was in gross error in acquitting the accused.

Submissions of Sri Nandish Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Shilpa Rani, learned Counsel for respondent No.2:

10. Basically the fact of victim being minor was not proved in accordance with law. Evidence of PW.2 itself shows that there was no act of sexual assault as alleged. Further medical evidence was also inconclusive. There was delay in filing the complaint. The accused was falsely implicated in the case to force him to marry the victim. Subsequently, the victim herself has obtained exparte divorce decree against the accused in M.C.No.82/2022. The trial Court on judicial appreciation of the evidence an