The requirement for substantial evidence in sexual assault cases is underscored, with considerations for appropriate sentencing guidelines reflecting the nature of the offense.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Uma, J.

The accused in Spl. Case [POCSO] No.17/2019 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-I [POCSO], Vijayapura, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for the sake of convenience), is impugning the judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2021, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 5 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW1, the mother of the victim, lodged the first information as per Ex.P1, alleging that her daughter is aged 11 years and the accused inducing her by paying money, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault during February, 2019 in the land belonging to one Gunnapura Talate and thereby committed the offences as stated above.

3. On the basis of the first information lodged by PW1, FIR as per Ex.P21 was registered against the accused. Accused was apprehended. Victim and the accused were subjected to medical examination. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. The Trial Court took cognizance for the above said offences and summoned the accused. Accused has appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 19, got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P24 in support of its contention and identified M.O.1 and 2. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record and examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 in his defence.

5. After taking into consideration all the materials on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is in appeal before this Court.

6. Heard Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sandeep V. Patil, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the first respondent-State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

7. 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?

8. My answer to the above point is ‘partly in the affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

9. It is the contention of the prosecution that, victim was aged 13 years and the accused was aged 27 years. The accused had lured and took her to the neighboring land, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly, during the first week of February 2019.

10. It is also stated that on 22.03.2019, the accused was again found near the house of the victim. He was seen by PW9 - the father of the victim girl and thereby incident has came into light, which resulted in filing of the first information by PW1 as per Ex.P1 against the accused.

11. In Ex.P1, the mother of the victim girl has stated that, when she was informed by her sons that the victim girl was taken by the accused to the nearby land. She questioned the victim. The victim informed her that the accused has committed rape on her. Since, accused is closely related to the family, she had