JANARDHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No.1 in Spl.C.No.227/2018 on the file of the learned First Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya has preferred this appeal challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 23/9/2020 convicting him for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 376(2)(i) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sec. 6 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'the POCSO Act') and sentencing him to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence punishable under Sec. 341 of IPC, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i) of IPC, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Sec. 506 of IPC, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 10 of POCSO Act, with default sentences.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per prosecution is that, accused No.1-appellant, who was residing in the ground floor of the house, wrongfully restrained PW1-the child aged 11 years, while she was playing in the first floor and committed aggravated sexual assault by inappropriately touching her breast and the private part, kissing her and also inserting his finger into her vagina. PW2 being the mother of the victim girl, lodged first information as per Ex.P2. Victim was subjected to medical examination, her statement under Sec. 164 of Cr.PC was recorded, where the victim narrated the acts committed by accused No.1.

(3.) It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.2 the mother of accused No.1 abetted commission of the offence and harbored accused No.1. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against both the accused. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned accused Nos.1 and 2. They have appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16, got marked Exs.P1 to 18 and identified Mos.1 and 2, in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record. But have not led any evidence in support of their defence. However, they got marked portion of the statement of PW4 as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, proceeded to convict accused Nos.1 and 2 as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, they have preferred this appeal. However, during pendency of the appeal, accused No.2 died and the appeal preferred by her was dismissed as abated.