ORDER

OF

ACQUITTAL

DATED

04.10.2016PASED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS &

SPECIAL JUDGE, BELAGAVI (POCSO) IN S.C.NO.313/2013 AND

CONVICT

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

FOR

OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366(A), 376 AND 506 OF IPC AND

UNDER SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT.

2

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 11.03.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

JUDGMENT

THIS

DAY,

RAJENDRA

BADAMIKAR,

J.

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The State has filed this appeal challenging the

judgment of acquittal dated 04.10.2016 passed by the III

Additional District & Sessions & Special Judge, Belagavi

(POCSO) and (SC/ST (POA) in S.C.No.313/2013 whereby

the

learned

Special

Judge

has

acquitted

the

accused/respondent herein for the offences punishable

under Sections 366(A), 376 and 506 and Sections 4 and

6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’ for short).

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before

the trial court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case

are as under:

That the victim girl was aged about 13 years and

was

studying

in

7^th

standard.

That

the

3

accused/respondent herein was her dance teacher and

taking advantage of such a situation on 21.04.2013 at

10.00

a.m.,

the

accused

induced

the

victim

to

accompany him, who was staying in the house of C.W.8

Ratnavva by falsely representing that there is a dance

programme at Bijapur and thereby having knowledge

that the victim was a minor kidnapped her out of lawful

guardianship of her parents. It is also alleged that from

21.04.2013 to 25.04.2013 at different places, such as,

Baliga village, Mucchandi village and again Baliga village,

he had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim girl

against her will and under the false promise of marriage

having knowledge that she was a minor. According to the

prosecution, in between when the victim girl tried to

contact her parents, he threatened her by giving life

threat. Subsequently, the father of the victim girl has

lodged

the

complaint

in

this

regard

and

having

knowledge of the complaint, the accused has left the

victim girl in Zalki cross by paying Rs.300/- and from

there, the victim girl came to Mudhol in a bus and

4

contacted her father who came to Mudhol and took the

victim girl to his place. Thereafter, she was taken to the

police station wherein the complaint came to be lodged in

crime No.138/2013 for the offence punishable under

Section 366(A) of IPC.

4.

Further, during the course of investigation, it

is revealed that accused has committed aggravated

sexual assault on the victim girl and as such, after

completing the investigation, the charge sheet was laid

for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376,

506 of IPC r/w Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. The

accused was later arrested and was remanded to judicial

custody. The Special Judge has taken cognizance of the

offences alleged considering sufficient material placed by

the prosecution. Copies of the prosecution papers were

also furnished to the accused, who was represented by

defence counsel. Then charge was framed against the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363,

366, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(i), 376 r/w

5

Section 417, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO

Act and the same was read over and explained to the

accused and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried.

5.

To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution

has examined in all 13 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 13 and

also placed reliance on 22 documents marked at Exs.P1

to P22 and 14 material objects at M.Os.1 to 14. During

the cross-examination of P.W.4, portion of the statement

recorded under Section 161 by the investigating officer is

got marked as Ex.D1 by the defence counsel.

6.

After conclusion of the evidence of the

prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable him to explain the

incriminating ev