State By Manchenahalli Police Station vs Narasimha Murthy & Others

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J

The State has preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 30.06.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.3/2019 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chikkaballapura.

The first respondent-accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 12 of POCSO Act.

It is the case of prosecution that the daughter of second respondent was kidnapped by the first respondent-accused on 05.11.2018 from Gowribidanur. She was taken to Hindupur and made to stay in the house of grandmother of the first respondent where he had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim girl.

In order to acquit the first respondent-accused of the alleged offences, the trial court has not believed the testimony of PW1 i.e., victim girl. The trial court has come to conclusion that the girl herself went voluntarily and her evidence does not disclose that she was subjected to penetrative sexual intercourse. The trial court has also held that her evidence is not trustworthy in view of wavering answers given by her. As evidence of PW1 is held to be not believable, importance was not given to medical evidence.

Sri K.S.Abhijit, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that PW1 has supported the case of prosecution. She has clearly stated that the first respondent had sexual intercourse with her when she was made to stay in the house of the grandmother of first respondent. The medical evidence also supports. PW5 has stated that she noticed rupture of hymen. In this view there is corroboration to the evidence of PW1. Therefore the trial court should not have acquitted the accused.

We have perused the evidence of PW1 and PW5. The testimony of PW1 clearly indicates that the victim girl as well as first respondent were in love. No case of enticement of the girl is forthcoming in order to hold that the offence under Section 366A of IPC was committed. Moreover the victim girl does not state that she was subjected to penetrative sexual intercourse. She has completely given a go-bye to prosecution case. In this view just because the doctor states that she noticed rupture of hymen, it is not possible to hold that the offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act is made out. The evidence of doctor is only supplementary, it cannot be used as a substantive evidence. In this view we come to conclusion that the trial court is justified in acquitting the first respondent-accused. We do not find any merit to admit this appeal. Hence the following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Impugned judgment dated 30.06.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.3/2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chikkaballapura is confirmed.

Order sheet dated 08.09.2022 shows that the trial court remanded the first respondent to custody pursuant to execution of warrant. That means respondent No.1 is in custody now. In view of confirmation of acquittal judgment, respondent No.1 has to be released. Therefore Registry is hereby directed to communicate to the concerned jailor to release respondent No.1 forthwith if his presence is not necessary in any other case/s.