IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal appeal – When two views are possible, view favourable to accused shall prevail.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (POCSO) No.14/2015 dated 21.11.2017.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. The accused have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 354A and 509 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 8, 10, 12 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’).

4. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant P.W.1/victim has lodged a complaint at Ex.P.1 claiming that she is aged about 14 years and resides in Biral(B) village and studying in 8th standard in the Government High School in the village. It is also alleged that P.W.2 is of her locality and she is also pursuing her studies in 8th standard in the same school. According to the allegations of the prosecution, since last 3-4 months, the accused used to tease them while going to the school and other places. On 26.01.2015 in the afternoon, when P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and her brother’s wife Renuka had been to Nala situated out of the village for washing the cloths, at about 01-30 p.m., the accused came there and teased by calling them as Aishwarya, Amulya, figure and invited to accompany them. It is also alleged that the accused tried to hold her hand and when Renuka threatened them, they fled from the spot. In this regard, a complaint came to be lodged and on the basis of the complaint, FIR came to be registered. The investigating officer after investigation submitted the charge-sheet.

5. The learned Special Judge has taken the cognizance of the offences and the accused were appeared through their counsel and were enlarged on bail. They were also provided with prosecution papers. The charge under Sections 509 and 354A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 12 and 18 of the POCSO Act is framed and read over to the accused and they pleaded not guilty. Further, it is to be noted that accused No.4 was said to be juvenile and his case was sent to juvenile justice board with a direction to investigating officer to submit separate charge-sheet against him and the prosecution was only as against accused Nos.1 to 3.

6. Though 13 witnesses were cited in the charge- sheet, the prosecution has tendered the evidence of 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and reliance was placed on 6 documents marked at Exs.P.1 to P.6. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded to enable them to explain incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial.

7. Having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge found that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby, acquitted the accused for the offences charged against them by exercising the powers under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the State is before this Court by way of this appeal.

8. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused. Perused the records.

9. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the learned Special Judge did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, especially the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the victims. He would contend that though the other witnesses are the hearsay witnesses, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was material and it is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, as the age of the victim was not challenged. Hence, it is contended that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, he w