STATE Vs. RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 06.09.2010 passed by Fast Track Court, Anekal in S.C. No. 18/2010 (Old No. 99/2010) is called in question in this appeal by the State. By the impugned judgment and order, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that victim/prosecutrix was aged about four years; she is the daughter of P.Ws. 1 (complainant) and 2 (mother of the victim); P.Ws. 1 and 2 were running a small restaurant at Mahantalingapura Village, Anekal Taluk.

(3.) SRI Keshava Murthy, learned SPP -II, appearing on behalf of the State, taking us through the entire materials on record submits that the evidence of the victim (P.W.3) is sufficient to bring home guilt against the accused; the evidence of P.W.3 is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are the eye -witnesses to the incident; case of the prosecution is further supported by the evidence of P.Ws4 and 5, who had seen the accused taking the victim to dilapidated house; since all the aforementioned witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offences with which he was charged. According to him, the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are not proper and correct.