JUDGMENT

The respondent (hereinafter referred as “accused”) was tried and acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the State is before this Court.

2. We have heard Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri M.M. Ashoka, learned Counsel for accused.

3. In brief the case of prosecution is as follows:

PW1 H.S. Bhavani was a resident of Heggula Village in the year 2006. The house of accused was situate opposite to the house of PW1. PW9 (victim girl) is the daughter of PW1 H.S. Bhavani. During the year 2006, the victim was aged about 4 years. The victim was frequently visiting the house of accused. PW2 H.R. Laxmana is the paternal uncle of victim. He was also a resident of Heggula Village.

4. It is the case of prosecution that on 3.12.2006 at about 1.00 p.m. (afternoon), accused took the victim to his house and removed her inner garment. He had made victim to sit on his lap. PW1 H.S. Bhavani heard hue and cry of victim. She rushed to the house of accused and found that accused had removed inner garment of victim and he had made the victim to sit on his lap. The accused had partly removed his inner garment. After seeing PW1, accused left the victim and came out of his house. PW1 took the victim and apprehended the accused. PW2 H.R. Laxmana was in his house. PW1 secured her husband. PW1, her husband and PW2 took the victim to the jurisdictional Police Station (Shanivarasan the Police Station). PW1 lodged the first information. The victim was examined by PW5 Dr. K.N. Harini in General Hospital at Somwarapet. The accused was apprehended by the police and he was produced before the Court.

5. The prosecution has relied on evidence of PW1H.S. Bhavani (mother of victim) and PW9 victim. The prosecution has relied on medical evidence of PW5. Dr. K.N. Harini and evidence of Investigating Officer and other police officials. As already stated, victim was aged about 4 years on the date of incident. When the victim was examined before the Trial Court she was aged about 7 years. The learned Sessions Judge after ascertaining from the victim that she was capable of giving rational answers has held that she was competent to give evidence and recorded her evidence.

6. PW9 victim has deposed that she was playing with other girls; on the date of incident Vinodannaiah (referring to accused) removed he, inner garment in his house. During cross-examination, she has reiterated that accused removed her inner garment. During cross-examination the victim has deposed that there was quarrel between the family members of victim and family members of accused. She has denied the suggestion that accused had not removed her inner garment. She has denied the suggestion that she was told by her mother to give false evidence against accused. On careful consideration of evidence of victim, we find that her evidence is consistent and credible. As already stated, the victim was hardly aged about four years on the date of incident. She was not aware as to what was done to her by the accused. PW9 victim did not have baser qualities of life like ill-will, animosity and vengeance. She did not have animosity against accused to give false evidence against him. She has clearly deposed before the Court what was done to her by the accused. We do not find any embellishment or exaggeration in the evidence of PW9 victim. The evidence of victim that accused had removed her inner garment is consistent and credible.

The learned Sessions Judge has assigned untenable reasons to discredit evidence of PW9 victim.

7. PW1 H.S. Bhavani is the mother of victim. PW1 has deposed that in the year 2006 PW1, her husband and victim (PW9) were residing in Heggula Village. PW1 and her husband were working in a coffee plantation. The house of accused was situate opposite to the house of PW1. On 3.12.2006 at about 1.00 p.m. (afternoon) PW1 was in her house, so also victim. At that time, accused called vi