Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the appeal and contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was clearly accepted by the trial Court and after summoning them for the purpose of further cross examination, they totally changed their version. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. There is no infirmity in the judgment. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant alternatively has contended that the appellant is in custody for almost 7 years. The incident took place when the appellant was in the house of the complainant and had sexual intercourse with the sister of his wife and as a reformative theory, he may be NC: 2023:KHC:23128 released by giving set off and found guilty under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

NC: 2023:KHC:23128

(b) PW.2-the victim girl, aged about 16 years has also stated that the accused is her brother-in-law and by misusing her loneliness, he has committed sexual assault on her for 15 times in both her house and her sister's house, due to which, she became pregnant. She also submits that she has given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P.2 and medical examination report as per Ex.P.3. The police prepared the panchanama and she identified the same. In the cross examination, the learned counsel though denied the incident but nothing elicited to disbelieve the evidence. However, this witness also recalled by the learned counsel for the accused. Subsequently on 26.10.2017, once again this witness totally changed her version and supported the accused and in the cross examination, she has admitted that if the accused will go to the jail, then there will be trouble to her sister, therefore, she has changed her version in the cross examination.

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:23128 the victim- PW.2 become pregnant and gave delivery to a male child after the registering of the case. As per the evidence of PW.6-Dr.Lohith, she was pregnant of 24 to 26 months when she was taken to the hospital for examination and as per the evidence of the Head Master of the school-PW.5, her date of birth is below 16 years and she was minor. On considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, even if it considered that PW.2 was a consenting party to the sexual affair, but she was minor for consent or willingness is immaterial as per the law. In the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in their examination-in-chief, they have categorically stated that the accused was the cause for the pregnancy and it was proved by the prosecution from the evidence of the doctor as well as victim. However, in the cross examination on 26.10.2017, the victim and PW.1 were changed their version and turned hostile on the ground that the life of the elder sister of the victim and elder daughter of the complainant will be under trouble. Therefore, at the request of the learned counsel, both of them were changed their version. Considering the entire evidence on record, it is clear, the appellant-accused committed sexual assault on the minor girl and made her to become pregnant. Absolutely, there is no

13. In view of the principle laid down in the above said judgments when the complainant and victim are fully supported the case against the accused and even if she came back for further cross examination and changed their version that can be ignored by the Court and the Court can accept the first evidence led before the Court. It appears, the accused is none other than the brother-in-law of PW.2 and son-in-law of PW.1 and to safeguard the life of her elder sister, PW.2-victim has changed her version.