STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. YALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed assailing the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 31.12.2014 passed by the II Additional District Sessions and Special Judge in Spl. S.C. No.16/2013.

(2.) The mother of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) on 01.10.2013 at 11:30 hours with Kalaghatagi Police Station alleging that her elder daughter, who was of borderline intelligence and studying in 8th standard, went for nature call at about 6:30 p.m. In the evening at about 7 p.m., CW.7 and his wife - CW.8 accompanied the prosecutrix to her house and left her in the custody of CW.1. The complainant - CW.1 disclosed that when she enquired with the prosecutrix, the latter informed her that the accused forcibly took her near Ittangi brick kiln and pinned her to the ground and undressed her and sexually assaulted her. The complainant also stated in her complaint that when the prosecutrix screamed out, CWs.7, 8 and 9 came to the spot and seeing them the accused fled from the scene. Later, the incident was narrated to CWs.10, 11 and to Imam Sab - CW.3 and one Khasim Sab, who apprehended the accused. A Crime in 163/2013 was registered by the Police for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act, 2012'). The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination at the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, which disclosed that there was no history of sexual intercourse. The hymen was intact and no external injury was found and there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. Subject to the final opinion, it was provisionally opined that the prosecutrix was not used to the act of sexual intercourse. In order to assess her mental deprivation, the prosecutrix was referred to Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Dharwad on 01.10.2013. When she was clinically examined, she presented bouts of irritable seizures and discoherent speech and the clinical Psychologist indicated that the mental age of the prosecutrix was 11 years with the corresponding intelligence quotient of 78 and possessed border line intelligence with behavioural problems. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') by CW.19 on 07.10.2013. After obtaining the forensic report, a conclusive opinion was furnished indicating that there was no sexual intercourse or forcible sexual assault on the prosecutrix. It was also found from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that there were no seminal stains on the clothes worn by the prosecutrix and there were no skin tissue on the nail clippings of the accused and the prosecutrix.

(3.) The prosecution is stated to have recorded the statements of CWs.7, 8 and 9 as well as the other panch witnesses, the mother of the prosecutrix and other witnesses who allegedly apprehended the accused and also of the Investigating Officer and the medical experts who conducted the examination. The prosecution thereafter filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 whereupon Special S.C. No.16/2013 was registered.