In this appeal the appellant/State is challenging

the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in

Spl.C.No.49/2014 dated 31.10.2015 acquitting the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376

and 450 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

In this appeal seeking to set-aside the judgment of

acquittal by considering the grounds urged in this

appeal and convict the accused for the offences which

are leveled against him.

2. Heard learned HCGP for State and learned

counsel namely Sri K.J.Gopi for respondent No.1 /

accused. Though notice has been served against

4

respondent No.2 3 Smt.Savitha, but remained absent.

Perused the judgment of acquittal in Spl.C.No.49/2014.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that

Smt.Savitha, w/o Ramesh had filed a complaint before

the jurisdictional police at Mandya East Police and

based upon that complaint, criminal law was set into

motion for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and

Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It is further alleged

in the complaint that accused with an intention of

committing sexual intercourse with victim who is the

daughter of CW.1, entered into the house of Nagamma,

in which CW.1 and her family are residing on rent. The

accused knowing that there was no other person except

the victim, asked her, where her parents had gone and

after coming to know that her parents had gone outside,

the accused all of a sudden caught hold the victim

firmly and kissed on her cheek. When the victim tried

5

to cry for help, the accused closed her mouth and

forcibly removed her dress and had forcible sexual

intercourse with the victim. These are the allegations

made by the complainant in the complaint against the

accused, based upon which the case in Crime

No.36/2014 came to be registered for the aforesaid

offences.

4.

Subsequent

to

recording

FIR

by

jurisdictional police whereby the investigating officer

took up the case for investigation and thorough

investigation was done. During the investigation, the IO

recorded the statement of witnesses and so also, drew

the mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses and

also secured the material documents as required under

Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, laid the charge

sheet

before

Court

having

jurisdiction.

Subsequently, the case was committed to the court of

Sessions by passing an order under Section 209 of

6

Cr.P.C. Subsequent to committing the case by the

committal court, the case in Spl.C.No.49/2014 was

registered. The accused was secured and the trial Court

heard learned Public Prosecutor for State and defense

counsel for the accused relating to framing of charge.

On finding prima-facie materials against the accused in

the charge sheet laid by the IO, and heard on charges

on both sides. The charges were read over to the

accused in language known to him. But the accused did

not pleaded guilty, but claimed to be tried. Accordingly,

the plea of accused was recorded separately.

5. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of

the prosecution whereby examined the accused as

required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for enabling him

to record the incriminating statement appeared against

him whereby the accused declined all the incriminating

evidence let in against him by the prosecution.

Accordingly, it was recorded. But the accused did not

7

come forward to adduce any defence evidence as

contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. However, the

accused was not inclined to lead any defence evidence.

Accordingly it was recorded.

6. Subsequent to closure of evidence on both the

side the trial Court heard arguments advanced by the

learned Public Prosecutor and so also, defense counsel

for the accused, and having gone through the evidence

of prosecution witnesses i.e., PW.1 who is the

complainant who made the complaint as per Ex.P1 and

PW.2 being the victim and no other than the daughter of

PW.1 and PW.3 being her parents. But PW.7 3 Saroja

H.N. an