The prosecution must establish the victim's age and the commission of the offence under POCSO Act; failure to do so warrants acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The convicted accused in Spl.C.No.35/2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’ for short) has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 14.07.2016 and the order of sentence dated 14.07.2016, by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act, 2012’ for short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the victim girl.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, PW.1 informed the respondent-police on 02.12.2013 at Bagalkot that the accused was residing in the same lane where her house was situated and that the accused used to tease her daughter. She claimed that at the instance of the elders in the village, the accused owned up his mistake and agreed not to repeat it. She alleged that after the said incident, whenever she walked in the lane, the accused used to abuse her and when questioned, he took her caste and threatened to kidnap and murder her. She alleged that she tolerated these incidents. However, on 30.11.2013 when she and her husband were out of the house, the accused had thrown stones at her house which was informed to her by other residents. Later, her husband informed this to the parents of the accused who told him that they had given up on him and to do whatever that was required to be done.

3. Based on this, the respondent-Police registered Crime No.263/2013 for offences punishable under Sections 336 , 354, 504 , 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’ for short) and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’ for short). The respondent-Police recorded the statements of the complainant, the victim girl and the father of the victim. The respondent-Police also recorded the statements of villagers who had warned the accused and who had informed the complainant that the accused had pelted stones at her house. The respondent-Police secured the caste certificate of the complainant from PW-12. Based on these material, a charge sheet was laid for offences punishable under Sections 336 , 354, 504 , 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC/ST Act and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The accused was arrested on 04.12.2013 and released on bail on 24.01.2014. Copies of the charge sheet were furnished to the accused and charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 336 , 354, 504 , 506 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The respondent-Police examined the complainant as PW.1 and the engineer who had drawn the sketch of the scene of the crime as PW.2, the victim girl as PW.3 and the father of the victim as PW.4.

5. PW.5, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8 were the elders of the village who had warned the accused against harassing the victim girl. These witnesses turned hostile. PW.9, PW.10 and PW.11 who supposedly had informed PW.1 that the accused had pelted stones at her house also turned hostile. PW.12 was the Tahsildar who placed on record the caste certificate of PW.1 which was marked at Ex.P.13. PW.13 was also one of the persons who had informed PW.1 about the accused pelting stones and he also turned hostile. PW.14 was the Police Inspector who registered FIR a