1.

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, being

aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated

29.02.2016 in Spl.Case No.79/2014 on the file of I Additional

District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Ramanagara,

wherein the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences

punishable Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 509 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short

‘POCSO Act’).

2.

The rank of the parties henceforth will be referred

as per their rankings in the Trial Court, for convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

3.

On 03.01.2014 at about 8.45 a.m., when PWs.1 to

3 were proceeding to college, the respondent/accused came on

a two-wheeler bearing its registration No.KA-42-Q-6692 by

whistling near the PWs.1 to 3 as if they will be dashed. PW.2

questioned about the rashness of his driving. Then, the

respondent assaulted her, being aggrieved by the act of the

respondent, PW.1 questioned about the assault, she had also

- 3 -

been assaulted. The matter was pacified by the intervention of

the people who gathered around them. PWs.1 to 3 had been to

their college and informed about the incident to the Principal.

The Principal asked the parents of PWs.1 to 3 to come to the

college and informed them to approach the jurisdictional police.

PWs.1 to 3 along with their parents went to the jurisdictional

police and lodged a complaint against the respondent. The

respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.2/2014

for the above offences. After conducting investigation, charge

sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer.

4.

To

prove

the

case

of

the

prosecution,

the

prosecution examined, in all, 8 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 8

and got marked 9 documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. The Trial

Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on

record opined that, the prosecution failed to prove the case

beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused/respondent

committed the offences stated supra and acquitted the

accused/respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the State

has preferred this appeal.

- 4 -

5.

Heard Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned HCGP for the

appellant-State and Sri.R.V.Sreerama Reddy, learned counsel

for the respondent.

6.

It is the submission of the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the appellant-State that, the findings

recorded for acquittal by the Trial Court are erroneous and

illegal. Hence, the judgment and order of acquittal requires to

be set aside.

7.

It is further submitted that, PWs.1 to 3 are the

eyewitnesses to the incident and they were minors as on the

date of alleged incident. Their evidence is consistent with the

assault and outrage their modesty. In spite of their consistent

evidence, the Trial Court recorded the acquittal which is

perverse and illegal and the said judgment of acquittal has to

be set aside.

8.

It is further submitted that, the Investigating

Officer who is examined as PW.8 has conducted proper

investigation and submitted the charge sheet. Merely because

some of the witnesses have turned hostile that cannot take

away the case of the prosecution. This aspect should have

- 5 -

been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the

evidence. Having failed to consider the evidence of the

witnesses properly resulted in passing the impugned judgment

which is required to be set aside. Making such submissions,

the learned HCGP prays to allow the appeal.

9.

Per

contra,

Sri.R.V.Sreerama

Reddy,

learned

counsel for the respondent justified the judgment and order of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court and submitted that, PWs.1

to 3 have not submitted their medical certificates in respect of

the injury which they have sustained in the said incident. In

the absence of medical certificates regarding the assault, it

cannot be said that they had been assaulted. Therefore, the

provision under Section 323 of IPC would not be proved.

10.

Even the entir