The court emphasized that the burden to prove the victim's age lies with the prosecution, which failed to establish it through credible evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Accused/appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04^th October, 2018 in Spl.Case.No.172 of 2017 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu Madikeri (for short “the trial Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per the status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Circle Inspector of Police, Madikeri Rural Police, has laid charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act). It is alleged by the prosecution that, victim-CW1 daughter of CW2 being a minor girl aged 16 years, is residing along with her parents at Kuruli, Emmemadu village within the limits of Napoklu Police Station, Kodagu District For the past two years, commencing from September 2015, when the complainant (CW1) was residing alone at her residence, the accused habitually frequented the said premises. The accused, by professing affection towards the complainant, cultivated an intimate relationship with her, and on multiple occasions, engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent and against her will.

4. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

5. After filing charge-sheet, the Special Court took cognizance against the accused for alleged commission of offence. Since from date for the arrest on 20^th September 2017, accused is in judicial custody.

6. The trial Court has framed charges against the accused for alleged commission of offence under Section 376 (2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused nine witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW9 and ten documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P10. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has admitted that the police have arrested him on 20^th September, 2017. Further, he has submitted that there was an altercation between himself and complainant's father regarding work and for that reason, false complaint was filed against him. Thereafter on behalf of accused, one witness was examined as DW1. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and and 6 of POCSO Act and sentence was passed. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. Sri Gaurav S., learned counsel for the appellant/accused, submits that the incident occurred on 15 September 2015, but the complaint was filed after a two-year delay on 18 September 2017. The prosecution offers no satisfactory explanation for this abnormal delay.

a. Exhibit P10 (Transfer Certificate from the Headmaster) shows the school received the victim's application on 21^st July 2018—after filing the charge-sheet on 23^rd November 2017. The Investigating Officer obtained this document post-charge- sheet without filing an application under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation, rendering it legally unsustainable.

b. In the Exhibit P8 (birth certificate) the victim's date o