The prosecution must establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, with consistent and corroborative evidence; significant contradictions in the victim's testimony can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14^th December, 2022 passed in SC.No.22/2022 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Udupi (for short "the trial Court") for the offence punishable under Sections 506 , 376(2)(n)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, accused has preferred this appeal.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that pursuant to a complaint lodged by the victim, a minor studying in Class 9, the Women Police Station, Udupi has registered Crime No. 1/2020 under Sections 506 , 376(2)(n)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It is stated in the complaint that approximately two months prior to the primary incident, the victim had become acquainted with the accused, a van driver, while en-route to a relative's wedding; the accused provided his mobile number, and the victim shared her mother's contact details, leading to frequent telephonic communications initiated by the accused with ulterior motives.

3. On 18.12.2019, while the victim was alone at home as her mother had left for work, the accused contacted her around 10:30 a.m. told her to proceed to Muddur in an autorickshaw he arranged and if she refused, he threatened the victim to reveal their conversation to her family. Upon arrival, the accused transported her in his van, commencing inappropriate physical contact around 2:00 p.m., and under coercion, perpetrated sexual intercourse before releasing her near her residence.

4. Subsequently, on 01^st January, 2020, while the victim was on her way to school, the accused intercepted her, falsely claiming a friend was aboard his van containing other school children, and deviated to Mandarthi where the children alighted. He misrepresented her destination as a hospital in Brahmavar to the children, then took her to a hotel for food, returning via Barkur to a secluded area where, under renewed threats, he committed sexual intercourse thrice—between 12:45 p.m. and 2:30-3:00 p.m., before dropping her near home.

5. Intimidated by the accused, the victim concealed the assaults from her family until her mother inquired about her school absence, prompting full disclosure; following consultations with relatives, the complaint was formally registered on 03^rd January, 2020. Investigation ensued, culminating in the accused's arrest and remand to judicial custody, followed by the filing of a charge sheet, upon cognizance of which, trial Court has proceeded in Spl. Case No. 22 of 2020.

6. The Trial Court has ensured that the charge-sheet along with its annexures was furnished to the learned counsel for the accused pursuant to Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after hearing in the presence of both sides, the trial court has framed charges against the appellant/accused under Sections 376 (2)(n)(i) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act"). The charges were explained to the appellant/accused in the language known to him, whereupon he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Trial Court has noted that the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 20 out of 28 charge- sheet witnesses, dispensing with the rest as formal or repetitive; documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P43 and material objects MOs1 to 8 were admitted in evidence. The appellant/accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, denying all incriminating circumstances, though no defence evidence was led. The Trial Court has heard arguments advanced by the Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and has meticulously perused the oral evidence, documentary exhibits, and entire record. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence and arguments, answered Points 1 and 2 in the affirmative, holding that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable u