The court emphasized the reliability of the victim's testimony while clarifying that mere sexual assault does not meet the threshold for aggravated charges under POCSO, which necessitates proof of penetration.

JUDGMENT :

B. MURALIDHARA PAI, J.

1. The accused in Special Case No.505/2023 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Belagavi (for short, ‘the trial court’) has maintained this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 4 15 (2) of the B.N.S.S.. praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 19.02.2025 holding him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 , 376AB and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the order of sentence dated 20.02.2025 passed therein, in the ends of justice.

2. The parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to, as per their ranking before the trial court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: On 03.08.2023 at 4.00 p.m., a complaint came to be lodged by a lady with APMC Yard Police of Belagavi city alleging that the accused herein has committed sexual assault on her minor daughter by trespassing into her house and that the accused has also threatened the victim with dire consequences if she revealed the incident to anyone else. Pursuant to such a complaint, APMC Yard Police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.123/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of IPC and took up investigation in the case. They apprehended the accused on the same day and subjected him for interrogation. Later, on completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional police laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 452 , 376AB and 506 of and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3.1. Based on the prosecution papers, the trial court took cognizance of the alleged offences, secured the presence of the accused from custody, supplied him copies of the prosecution papers in compliance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing both side, framed charge against the accused for the alleged offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, the trial court called upon the prosecution to adduce their evidence.

3.2. During the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P46 and the material objects at M.O.1 to M.O.15. Afterwards, the trial court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. But, he has not adduced any defense evidence. Thereafter, the trial court heard the arguments of both side and passed impugned judgment holding that the accused is guilty of the alleged offences and passed the sentence as it deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Being aggrieved, the accused has directed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

4. During the course of argument, Sri Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned Counsel for Accused has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment is erroneous and perverse and it is contrary to well settled principles of law. He has submitted that in spite of clear cut contradictions in the case put forth by the prosecution, the trial court proceeded to hold him guilty for the alleged offences, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record. He has contended that though the materials on record do not prove commission of penetrative sexual assault on the victim, the trial court proceeded to hold the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376AB of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. According to him, at the most the trial court could have held the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and not for any other offence. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, in the ends of justice.

5. Per Contra, Sri M.B.Gundawade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State, supported the findings and the conclusion of the trial court and submitted that the trial court