J U D G M E N T

The appellant-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 30-4-2018 passed by the learned Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Special Court") in Special Criminal Case No.575 of 2014 acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC") and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the POCSO Act").

2. Summary of the case of the prosecution is that the accused and the victim girl (PW2/CW2) were known to each other. At the relevant point of time, the victim girl was minor in her age and she was aged about 16 years. On the date 14-10-2014 at about 4:00 p.m., the accused in the guise of loving and marrying the victim girl, enticed her to go along with him from near her house at No.16, 11th 'A' Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, Bengaluru. He took her to Hyderabad. Knowing that she was minor in her age, the accused committed repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault (rape upon her). In the meantime, PW1/CW1, the mother of the alleged victim girl, had lodged a complaint before the complainant-Police in Crime No.292 of 2014 stating that her daughter, who was minor in her age, was found missing from their house from the date 14-10-2014 and she had suspected the hands of the accused in her daughter having found missing. Accordingly, the said complaint was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, according to the prosecution, both the victim girl and the accused were traced at Hyderabad and they were brought back to Bengaluru. The victim girl narrated before the Investigating Officer that she was subjected to repetitive penetrative sexual assault by the accused. Both the accused and the alleged minor girl were subjected to medical examination by the Doctor. Having claimed that, during the course of investigation, he has collected sufficient material to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the complainant-Police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. After perusing the material placed before it and hearing both side, the Special Court framed a charge as against respondent No.1/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the trial was held, wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all ten witnesses from PW1 to PW10, got produced and marked documents from Exs.P1 to P12. From the accused’s side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked as exhibits.

4. After hearing both side, the learned Special Court, by its judgment dated 30-4-2018, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Challenging the same, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

5. The appellant–State is represented by Smt. Rashmi Jadav, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. Respondent No.1/accused is represented by Sri Mohammed Pasha C.

6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused 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 material placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impu