STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SURESH K.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dtd. 31/3/2017 in Spl.C.(POCSO) No.04/2014 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions & Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that when PW.2, a girl aged 15 years was returning from the school at 2.30 p.m. on 5/10/2013, the respondent/accused dragged her inside the car and molested her by kissing and touching her private parts. The report in this regard was given to the police on 31/12/2013. This followed the investigation resulting in charge sheet being filed against the respondent for the offences under Sec. 506, 354 , 366A of IPC, Sec. 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Act and Sec. 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act.

(3.) During trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as per PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. Three witnesses DW.1 to DW.3 adduced evidence on behalf of the accused and produced the documents as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15. The assessment of evidence by the trial court resulted in acquittal of the accused with the reasons that the testimony of PW.2 is not consistent with her statement given before the Magistrate under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., that though the incident was stated to have occurred on 5/10/2013, till 31/12/2013, no report was made to the police and thereby this unexplained delay gives scope for doubting the prosecution case, that there was delay also in producing the victim girl before the Magistrate for obtaining her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. and that the conduct of the victim girl and her family members as also the police would create a doubt in respect of very happening of the incident. Referring to the defence evidence, the trial court observed that as per Ex.D.3 it was forthcoming that the accused participated in a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Sringeri held on 5/10/2013 at 3.00 p.m. and if this document is considered, a doubt would arise in the very happening of the incident. The trial court has also noticed many improvements made by PW.2 while giving evidence on the basis of evidence given by the investigating officer examined as PW.12.