MANIKANTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has stood convicted for the offences punishable under Sec. 376 (2) (i)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), and sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act' for short) and sentenced to life under sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, and simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000.00 for the offence under sec. 506 IPC. The argument of Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel, gives rise to following questions to be answered :

(2.) Before answering the above questions, briefly the incident that led to prosecuting the accused may be stated here. PW1 developed acquaintance with the accused when she was a student of 5th standard as the latter used to visit the house of her neighbour viz., Yashodha. 16/6/2016 was her birthday (annual). Around 6.00 p.m. on that day accused went to the house of PW1 and took her to his house stating that there was a pooja in his house. There was nobody in the house of the accused when PW1 went there. The accused took her inside a room of his house and subjected her to intercourse. As she screamed, accused gagged a piece of cloth into her mouth. He repeatedly subjected PW1 to intercourse throughout night. On the next day morning when she was about to leave his house for her house, she was threatened to be killed if she would disclose the incident to anybody. Thereafter the accused had intercourse with her five or six times and threatened of killing her family members if she would disclose the same to anyone. When she started fainting in the school, the teacher informed of it to her mother. The medical checkup revealed that PW1 had become pregnant and at that time she disclosed everything. In this regard FIR was registered on 20/12/2016. PW1 gave birth to a female baby. The DNA test conducted during investigation confirmed that the accused was the father of the baby born to PW1.

(3.) The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 19 documents, Ex.P.1 to P.19 to prove its case. The trial court has of course referred to the evidence of all the witnesses, but in regard to age of PW1, there is no discussion at all. It appears that the defence did not make it a point of argument before the trial court in the way it was made a prominent point of argument before us. Since the age is a deciding factor to invoke any of the offences under the POCSO Act, point no.1 requires to be answered.