STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VENKATARAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 5/2/2018 in Spl SC No.26/2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur ('Sessions Court' for short) for the offences punishable under Ss. 366A, 344, 376 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (' POCSO Act ' for short) and Sec. 3 (1) (xii) and 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the State is before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) On 15/12/2014, at around 9.00 a.m. while victim girl (PW1) was on her way to school from Chintamakaladinne to Marganakunte, she was approached by Venkataramana (accused No.1) and Suri @ Suresha (accused No.3). They informed her that her grand mother was being assaulted during a CPI (M) Party Meeting by unknown individuals. Believing their claim, PW1 accompanied them. Instead of taking her to her grand mother, the accused took her to Sri Anjaneya Temple, situated at Sulthanpet, Doddaballapur road. It is further alleged that she was wrongly confined in a room from 15/12/2014 to 29/12/2014. During this period, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed sexual assault on her, while accused No.3 is alleged to have facilitated the offence. The accused were charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 366A, 344, 376 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, Sec. 4 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3 (1) (xii) and 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove their case, examined 34 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.34, marked documents at Exs.P1 to P46 and MO.1 to MO.6. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence, however, did not choose to lead any evidence. The Sessions Court found material contradictions in the testimony of PW1, particularly with respect to the sequence of events, the identity and role of the accused persons, and the nature of the alleged acts committed during her confinement. PW1 had given multiple, inconsistent versions, these versions differ substantially on who allegedly abducted her (accused Nos.1 and 3), how she was taken to Chikkaballapur, whether she was intoxicated and the commission of sexual assault. Furthermore, the Sessions Court found that PW1 during her cross-examination admitted to not having previously seen accused No.2 despite earlier implicating him. These inconsistencies were found to be not merely minor discrepancies but material contradictions going to the root of the prosecution's case. The Sessions Court found that there was lack of medical evidence which undermines the core allegation of the prosecution. The mother (PW2) and grandparents (PW3) and (PW4) turned hostile and denied having given any incriminating statements, weakening the prosecution's narrative significantly. The Sessions Court, finding inconsistencies, lack of corroboration and hostility of witnesses, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, acquitted the accused.