The prosecution failed to prove the accusations of kidnapping and sexual offences beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the trial court's acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

Heard learned Addl. SPP Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, appearing for the appellant/State.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is absent.

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 30.10.2017 passed in S.C.No.307/2014 on the file of VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru acquitting respondents Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2) (i) & (n) and 506 IPC and also under Sections 5 (1) r/w 6 & 17 of POCSO Act and prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of acquittal and convict respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charges levelled against them.

2. The case of the prosecution before the trial court is that on 18.05.2014 at 3.10 p.m., accused No.1 induced minor girl C.W.2, who is examined as PW.1 to accompany him, stating that he would marry her and when PW.1 did not agree for the same, accused No.1 threatened PW.1 with dire consequences and forcibly kidnapped her and took her to his native place at Pudupete village, Shivashakthinagar in Thiruvannamalai District of Tamil Nadu, where his parents accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing. That on 20.05.2014, the accused committed rape on PW.1 in the bedroom of his house and then on 01.06.2014, accused No.1 got married PW.1 at Ganesha Temple of Paduvedu Village. It is also the charge that after marriage also, accused No.1 committed rape on PW.1 in his house at Pudupete and accused Nos.2 and 3 knowing fully well that PW.1 is still a minor permitted accused No.1 to remain in the house with PW.1 and aided accused No.1 in committing the offence and hence, the case was registered, matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. The trial judge having considered the material of charge sheet took cognizance and also framed charges against the accused persons and also recorded the evidence of PW Nos.1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to 16 were marked. On closure of the evidence of prosecution case, the trial judge recorded the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence of their behalf. However, the document Ex.D1 is marked during cross examination of PW.2. The trial Judge having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the kidnapping of PW.1 and also causing threat on PW.1 and so also subjecting her for sexual act against her wish and that accused Nos.2 and 3 aided accused No.1 knowing fully well that PW.1 is a minor and allowed to marry her and made her to stay in the house along with accused No.1. So also, it is the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved that accused No.1 has got married PW.1 on 01.06.2014, illegally took her to Ganesha Temple and accused Nos. 2 and 3 aided accused No.1 to marry PW.1 and they also performed the marriage and all these points were answered considering the evidence available on record and comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Being aggrieved by the acquittal order, present appeal is filed by the appellant/State.

3. The main contention of Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the appellant/State is that the trial Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case and committed an error in acquitting the accused and also failed to take note of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.13 and documents which have been marked on behalf of the prosecution; it is the case of the victim girl while deposing before the Court that accused No.1, who was worki