The court affirmed that acquittal was proper, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases and the prosecution’s failure to prove kidnapping or consent under the specified laws.

JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

These two appeals are filed by the State and P.W.2, mother of the victim girl, respectively, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2024 passed in Spl.C.C.No.2945/2023, on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru and praying this Court to set aside the acquittal order passed for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and to convict the accused for the above offences.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is the daughter of P.W.2 and the victim girl was a resident of Ralahalli Village, Madakasira Taluk, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. The accused is also a native of the same place, where the victim girl is residing. During the month of April 2023, the accused came in contact with the victim girl and forced her to love him, but the victim girl refused his proposal by saying that she is still minor. But the accused told that he will marry her and made her to love him and thereafter, they both started roaming. It is the further case of the prosecution that 1½ months prior to the date of lodging of the complaint, the fact of love affair between the accused and the victim girl came to the knowledge of P.W.2 and she advised the accused not to continue such an act and she sent the victim girl to the house of P.W.1. That P.W.1 was residing at Mallasandra, T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore. This fact came to the knowledge of the accused and he used to come near the house of P.W.1 and he used to talk with the victim girl. On 16.10.2023, the accused kidnapped the victim girl from the house of P.W.1 and took her to the house of Bharatha S/o Muniyappa, which is situated at Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and in that room, the accused had forceful sexual act with her repeatedly against her wish. Thereafter, the accused took her to Tirupathi and Hyderabad and later dropped her near Jalahalli Cross. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 had already lodged the complaint and the case was registered in Crime No.369/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. On the return of the victim girl, her statement was recorded before the police and also she was taken to the Magistrate and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial and hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 23 and material objects of M.O.1 to M.O.7 were marked. On closure of the evidence, 313 statement of the accused was recorded and he did not lead any defence evidence, except marking of Ex.D.1 confronting the same in the cross- examination of P.W.9.

3. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered all the points in the negative coming to the conclusion that the age of the minor was not proved, though relied upon Exs.P.11 and 12 and the same is not admissible and the same is not sufficient to determine the age of the victim girl as required under sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’ for short). The evidence of the doctor was also taken note of and the same is coupled with the evidence of P.W.3 victim girl and comes to the conclusion that the doctor's evidence is very clear that hymen was intact and there were no any injuries and no sign of subjecting her for sexual act and medical report Ex.P.9 was also taken note of and comes to the conclusion that in the absence of medical evidence, the question of convicting the accused does not arise and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal