The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, including the minor status of the victim, which it failed to do, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by accused No.1 challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere in SC No.103/2017, convicting and sentencing him for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 313 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Vishwajith Rai for Sri. Jayaprakash K.N. for the accused- appellant and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under;

The first informant, Sri. K.Y. Raghavendra Rao is a resident of Vinoba Nagar in Davanagere. He has a daughter and a son. His daughter is a minor. When she was studying in I PUC, accused No.1 used to follow her and tease her. He used to roam in front of her house. She had informed the matter to her parents. In spite of advising the accused, he did not stop following her. The matter was brought to the notice of one Leela Kumaraswamy, working in an NGO. However, accused No.1 did not cooperate when she had called him over phone to enquire about the matter. The accused was threatening the victim girl to listen to his words or to face dire consequences.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused No.1 forced the victim girl to fall in love with him and on 08.12.2016, by force and putting threat, he took her to his house. Accused Nos.2 and 3, his mother and sister gave juice to her, drinking which she became unconscious. Thereafter, accused No.1 took her to the bedroom and committed penetrative sexual assault against her will and without her consent. Thereafter, on several occasions, he committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on her in his house. Due to the said act, the victim became pregnant. Accused No.1 in order to cause abortion, administered three tablets to the victim, which caused abortion. Hence, the accused committed the charged offences.

5. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 506, 313 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 17 of the POCSO Act.

6. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 21.01.2019 passed in SC No.103/2017, convicted appellant-accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 313 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 of the charged offences against them.

7. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the entire case of the prosecution is false and it is a cooked up story. The learned counsel submits that the version in the first information report, statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC and the evidence given before the Court are not consistent. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of prosecution case. The medical evidence does not support the version of the prosecutrix. The DNA examination report is negative. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is shrouded with doubt. There is no convincing material to show that either the accused gave juice laced with sedatives and committed rape on the victim or that the accused administered tablets to the victim which caused abortion. There is no investigation as to from where the accused obtained the tablets or to show that the said tablets caused abortion. It is contended that on the same set of evidence, accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted. The date of birth certificate given in proof of age of the victim is a concocted document. The medical evidence with regard to age proof does not support the prosecution case. The prosecution has suppressed the actual age of the victim. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of incident.

8. The learned counsel for the appell