JUDGMENT

This is State ’s appeal challenging the judgment dated 12.09.2017 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru,(for short ‘Trial Court’) in Special case No.380/2017. The accused has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

2. We refer to the parties as their rank before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that victim girl – PW-8 is the daughter of PW-1. It appears wife of PW-1 died in an accident, thereafter, PW-1 – Sri. R. Chandrashekariah has been residing with his son and daughter in Maraluru of Tumakuru. PW-1 had been serving as a teacher in Primary School at Kodihatti Village of Gubbi Taluk. Everyday he was travelling from Maraluru to his place of work. Victim girl, during 2017, was studying in IX Standard in Empress School at Tumakuru. She use to go to school in bus.

4. On 20.03.2017, PW-1 received phone call from Child Welfare Committee (hereinafter for short ‘CWC’) of Tumakuru District, asking him to visit Child Care Centre, Sadashivanagara, Tumakuru. Accordingly, he had been to Child Care Centre. It was told to him that, victim girl was pregnant and she did not disclose proper information about the person, who was responsible for her pregnancy. Accordingly, PW-1 was asked to ascertain the facts from PW-8. On enquiry by PW-1, PW-8 informed that, accused of this case was responsible for her pregnancy. Thereafter, PW-1 has filed complaint to Women Police Station, Tumakuru as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the said complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.22/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and

6 of POCSO Act as per Ex.P15.

5. PW-9 – Smt. Nirmala (PSI), Women Police Station and PW-10 – Smt. Parvathamma S (PI), Women Police Station, investigated the case. On conclusion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, before Special Court (for short herein after referred to as ‘Trial Court’). The learned Session Judge took cognizance of the offence and registered Special case.No.380/2017 and secured the presence of the accused. Accused was in judicial custody. The learned Session Judge supplied copy of charge sheet and enclosures to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge heard the accused and framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In an attempt to prove its case, prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 10; it got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and closed its evidence. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his answers were recorded. Accused did not lead defence evidence.

7. The learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of both side and framed one point for determination. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge answered the said point in the ‘Negative’ and acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him by the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2017, same is challenged in the present appeal.

8. We have heard the arguments.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State vehemently contended that PW-1 in his evidence has stated about the incident. PW-8, who is a victim of the incident, though turned hostile before the Court, has stated about the incident before the Police as well as before the Magistrate while recording her statement under Section 164 (5) of Cr.P.C. In Ex.P1, as per information of PW-8, PW-1 has given the complaint alleging that accused had committed offences. Investigating Officer, collected blood sample of child of PW-8 and accused and sent for DNA Test. The Scientific Officer after examining the materials sent to him, gave certificate stating that accused is the biological father of the child born to PW-8. The said report is conclusive proof to hold that accused had c