STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DEVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is in appeal impugning the judgment of acquittal dtd. 19/9/2015 passed in Spl.Case No.369 of 2013 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 at Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 366A, 342, 376 and 343 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'the POCSO Act').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, PW1 lodged the first information against the accused as per Ex.P1 dtd. 10/10/2013 stating that the victim is his daughter and she had not returned from the college from 5/10/2013. Even though he searched her for 4 to 5 days, he could not trace her whereabouts. On the other hand, he learnt that the accused had forcibly kidnapped her. The victim was born on 4/11/1997 and aged 15 years 11 months. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case against the accused and to trace the victim. On the basis of this first information, FIR as per Ex.P17 was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 366A of IPC and the investigation was undertaken. During investigation, it was found that the accused forcibly kidnapped, wrongfully confined the minor girl, married against her will and committed forcible sexual assault. Therefore, the charge sheet came to be filed.

(3.) The accused who appeared before the Trial Court pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses, got marked 19 documents and identified 13 material objects in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, Ex.D1 came to be marked during cross examination of PW2. The Trial Court on the basis of these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused was acquitted as per the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal on various grounds.