In cases of sexual offences, the prosecution must establish the age of the victim convincingly, as ambiguous evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S.RACHAIAH, J.

These appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 separately arising out of the same judgment and same crime numbers. Therefore, taken up together for disposal.

Factual matrix of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 3 are well-known to P.W.1 from past three years. The accused No.1 was loving her since one and half years. The accused Nos.2 and 3 are friends, they used to go together whenever the occasion arises. The accused No.1 took the victim to his house to introduce to his mother. The mother of accused No.1 informed the complainant that accused No.1 was not taking care either her or her daughter who is pregnant, such being the fact, even if she married him, there would be a problem to her. On hearing the said information the victim gradually trying to detach from the company of accused No.1. The accused No.1 being enraged by the said detachment, hatched a plan to commit rape on her. Accordingly, on 05.06.2019, he called accused Nos.2 and 3 to his house and hatched a plan. The accused No.3 called P.W.1 from his mobile and informed her that he was going to his native and he wanted to meet her. Accordingly, the victim was waiting near the place where she had been instructed. He went to the spot on his scooter and took her and dropped her near one place and asked her to wait till he returns back. Again, he took her on his scooter and proceeded towards the house of accused No.1. At that time, P.W.1 asked accused No.3 as to why she had been brought to the house of accused No.1, by that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 caught hold the victim by closing her mouth and took her inside the house and forcibly made her to consume alcohol and committed sexual assault on her. After, the incident, she was scot-free and asked her to go to her home. In the mean time, they snatched the mobile phone of P.W.1 and sent her outside the house. When she was going on the street, she was crying. On hearing the crying of the victim, public asked her as why she was crying, victim narrated the incident, and they called the Police. The Police took her to the place where she had been subjected to sexual assault and arrested the accused persons and recorded statement of the victim. The respondent-Police after conducting the investigation submitted the charge-sheet.

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked 53 documents as Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.53 and also identified 23 material objects and marked as M.O.1 to M.O.23.

4. Heard Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned counsel for appellants and Smt. Pushpalatha B. learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri. Ramesha H.N., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is highly erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 – victim is having contradictions and omissions. Based on her evidence, recording the conviction is erroneous and irrelevant.

6. It is further submitted that P.W.3 – Dr. Prabhavathi who was working as Doctor at Vani Vilas Hospital, conducted medical examination of P.W.1 and submitted a report as per Ex-P.12. The said report would indicate that she had not been sexually assaulted recently. When P.W.1 was subjected to medical examination on the same day, the Doctor opined that there was no recent sexual intercourse, the allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 3 certainly creates doubt. However, the Trial court ignored the said medical report and app