JUDGMENT

The State has filed this appeal under Section 378 (1)

and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the Cr.P.C.'), challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 04.12.2017, passed by the learned III Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Special Court') in Special Case No.259/2015, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the IPC') and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `POCSO Act').

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Special Court was that, on the date 14.04.2015, when the complainant (CW-1/PW-2) (henceforth referred to as `victim girl') was alone at her house at Upparahalli Tanda, within the limits of complainant-Police Station and when her parents and sisters were also away from the house, at about 9.00 p.m., the accused committed house trespass into her house and on the pretext of talking to her about their alleged marriage, initially talking with her, expressed his desire to have sexual intercourse with her, though she refused to his desire, still, he forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault upon her and thereafter alarmed her not to reveal about the incident, otherwise, he would not marry her and left the home. It is thereafter, on a complaint lodged by the victim girl with the complainant-Police on the date 13.06.2015, which came to be registered in the complainant-Police Station in their Station Crime No.49/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, which resulted in the complainant- Police filing a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

3. After perusing the materials placed before it and hearing both side, the Sessions Judge's Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held, wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all fifteen (15) witnesses as PW-1 to PW-15, got produced and marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-14. From the accused’s side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked as exhibits.

4. After hearing both side, the Special Court by its judgment dated 04.12.2017, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 448 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Challenging the same, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal.

5. The appellant –State is represented by learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor, respondent No.1/accused is represented by his learned counsel and respondent No.2/de facto complainant is represented by learned Amicus Curiae - Sri V.S.Vinayaka, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae vide order dated 07.12.2023.

6. The learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2 are physically appearing in the Court.

7. The Special Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the Special Court records.

9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the learned Special Court.

10. Learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State in her argument submitted that, it is none else than the victim girl herself has stated her date of birth as 02.05.1998. The evidence of her parents as PW-3 and PW-4 also shows that the victim girl was minor in her age at the time of the incident. The evide