The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 26.02.2016 by the I Additional District and Sessions Court, at Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Sessions Judge’) in Special Case No.04/2015, wherein the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’).

2. The abridged facts that led to the trial of the appellant-accused are as follows:

On 05.12.2014 at about 8:30 a.m., near Anekattu on the road situated between Kenjigarahalli-Kethohalli, Ramanagara Taluk, the respondent/accused forcibly dragged the victim- PW.1 and attempted to disrobe her while she was on her way to Mayaganahalli School. However, after hearing her hue and cry, PW.3-Rajanna came to the spot and rescued her. Accordingly, she lodged a complaint before Ramanagara Rural Police on the same day as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, the said Police registered the case against the accused in Crime No.414/2014 dated 05.12.2014 as per Ex.P4. Thereafter, the PSI of said appellant-Police investigated the case and laid the chargesheet against the accused before the Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. On taking cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the accused, the learned Special Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The same was read over verbatim to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution collectively examined 5 witnesses before the Sessions Court as PW.1 to PW.5 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Special Judge read over the incriminating evidence of the material witnesses to the accused as stipulated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C . However, the accused denied the same.

The defence of the accused is one of total denial and that of false implication. However, the accused neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents on his behalf.

6. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Special Judge, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged under this appeal by the State.

7. I have heard the learned HCGP Sri. Rahul Rai K., for the appellant-State and the learned counsel Sri. Manjunath B.R., for the respondent/accused.

8. I have given my circumspect consideration both on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also the entire evidence available on record.

9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has primarily relied on the evidence of PW.1-victim and the evidence of PW.6 who visited to the spot soon after the incident. PW.1-victim stated in her evidence that, on the date of incident at about 8:30 a.m. while she was on her way to school the accused-a stranger, held her hand and dragged her towards a fence. When she shouted the accused tried to close her mouth with cloth. When PW.3 reached the spot, accused fled. Later, she lodged the complaint before the appellant- Police. However, in the cross-examination she categorically admitted that, at the spot of incident there were movement of people and vehicles. Further, on both sides are agricultural lands. According to her, PW.2-Lakshmamma her older aunt and PW.3-Rajanna were working on their land at the time of incident, upon hearing her hue and cry, they reached the spot. Further, she also stated that the accused stuffed cloth in her mouth to prevent her from crying for help. However, on perusal of the evidence of PW.2-the mother of the victim she has stated that she reached the spot after the incident and on enquiry, she learnt that the accused dragged