STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GANGADHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal dtd. 8/12/2017 passed by the VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.294/2016.

(2.) Facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal are that the accused is a resident of Ayarahalli village, he was working with PW-5 and CW-3 Lokesh as a Carpenter at Mysuru. On 11/6/2016, accused came to the house of PW- 1, CW-3 Lokesh and PW-5. PW-5 invited the accused to his house and he was allowed to stay in the house overnight. Taking advantage of the fact that PW-1, CW-3 Lokesh and PW-5 went outside, accused took PW-2, minor daughter of PW-1 and CW-3, to a room and committed rape on her. After some time, PW-1 and PW-5 returned home. The door was locked from inside. They knocked at the door but the accused did not open. At that time PW-2 victim girl, her brother and accused were inside. The door was broken open. Son of PW-1 was found sleeping in the hall, and the accused and PW-2 in the room. Accused was on underwear and PW-2 was naked and her thighs appeared red. It is the further case of prosecution that PW-2 victim informed PW-1 that she was unable to pass the urine. There was inflammation on her private part. PW-1 informed the said incident to the police on next day and the police registered the FIR, took up the investigation, sent PW-2 to the hospital for examination.

(3.) On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 376(2)(f) and (i) of IPC and also under Ss. 5(m) and (n), 6, 9(m) and (n) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act']. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs-1 to PW-8 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. To come to this conclusion, the Trial Court has observed that there are a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 5, which would create doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the incident. It has also observed that PW-2, minor victim, has not stated anything before the doctor with regard to the incident and it is PW-1, her mother, who explained the incident to the doctor. The trial Court held that the evidence of PW-2 is contrary to the evidence of PW- 1, mother of PW-2, and there is no clarity with regard to the alleged incident. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that PW-3 doctor has admitted in the cross examination that redness of skin may also occur even in case if any force is used on the said part of the skin; hence, there may be any other reason for genital assault on PW-2, in as much as Ex.P-3 medical certificate of the victim also does not indicate any injuries on the private part of the victim.