This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.PC is filed

challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.2016

passed by the learned Special Judge and II Addl. Sessions

Judge, Vijapur in Special Case (POCSO) No.04/2016, by which,

the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under

Section 376(a) of IPC read with Section 3(a) punishable under

Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven

years, and payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default to

undergo SI for a period of three months.

The case of the prosecution is that, CW7, victim girl

along with CW10, Parvati were proceeding to the land of

Mallappa Manur, and when they came near brick kiln, the

accused came on a motorcycle with an intention to commit rape

on CW7, lured the victim girl, to give lift to her upto the land,

made both CW7 and CW10 to sit on his motorcycle, dropped

CW10 near his land, and then took the victim girl to the land of

Hanamtaraya Ingalagi stating that, there was coolie work,

forcibly took the victim girl to the sugarecane field, and

committed rape.

3.

The learned Sessions Judge, after framing charge

for the aforesaid offences, read over the same, and explained

the same to the accused, to which he denied, and claimed to be

tried.

- 3 -

4.

The prosecution to prove its case examined PWs.1

to 18, and exhibited the documents as Exs.P1 to P9, and

marked the material objects at Exs.D1 to D6.

5.

After completion of the evidence of prosecution, the

incriminating

circumstances

found

in

the

evidence

of

prosecution witnesses were put to the accused as contemplated

under Section 313 of Cr.PC, to which the accused denied.

6.

The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the

evidence on record, held that, the prosecution has established

the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and

passed the impugned judgment and order.

7.

The learned counsel for the appellant - accused

submits that, the victim as well as the mother having not

supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Sessions

Judge has committed an error in passing the impugned

judgment solely on the basis of medical opinion by drawing

presumption under Section 29 of the Evidence Act. Hence, he

submits that, in the absence of any evidence to establish that,

the accused has committed the aforesaid offence, the

impugned judgment is not sustainable in law.

8.

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent - State submits that, the victim girl was taken to

the hospital, and the medical opinion indicates that, the hymen

was ruptured and the statement of the victim recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.PC, clearly establishes the guilt of the

- 4 -

accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions

Judge, taking into account of the same, has rightly passed the

impugned judgment, and the same does not warrant any

interference, and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9.

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties, and perused the trial court records.

10.

PW1, the mother did not support the case of the

prosecution and was treated as hostile. Nothing was elicited in

the cross-examination to disbelieve her statement.

11.

PW6, the victim girl, in her examination-in-chief,

has deposed that, the accused had not taken her on

motorcycle, and committed rape. She further deposed, as to

why her mother had lodged the complaint, and after lodging

the complaint, the police took her to the Vijayapur Hospital for

examination. She has not stated anything before the doctor,

nor her mother that, there was sexual assault by the accused.

The victim girl was treated as hostile, and nothing was elicited

by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt.

12.

PW14, who is the doctor, in his examination-in-

chief, who had examined the victim girl, and issued a medical

certificate at Ex.P22, has opined that, there were signs of

recent penetration in t