The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to support serious charges; lack of medical corroboration led to acquittal from severe charges while upholding a lesser conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The accused in SC No. 1 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2020, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, the 'POCSO Act'), sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 20 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, PW1, the mother of the victim girl has filed first information as per Ex.P1 against the accused, contending that on 02.11.2018 at 04.00 p.m., when PW.2-victim girl aged 12 years, had gone to his lands, accused No. 1 came and removed her clothes, tried to commit rape. Further two months earlier to the said incident when the victim girl had gone to bring haystack, the accused had pushed her to the ground and committed rape, punishable under Section 376 of IPC, and that by having sexual intercourse with the minor girl, the accused has committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. The police, after registering the FIR against the accused, conducted investigation, and subjected the victim and the accused for medical examination. Statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC as per Exhibit P10 and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exhibits P1 to 20 and identified material objects as MOs.1 to 9 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this court.

4. Heard Sri.Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State and Smt.Sowmya Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

5. In light of the rival contentions urged by learned Counsel for both parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under:

"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"

My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 02.11.2018, the accused had tried to commit rape on the minor girl, aged 12 years by removing her clothes, and two months earlier to the said incident, the accused had committed rape on her and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. To prove its contention, the prosecution