JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi dated 17.04.2015 in Sessions Case No.27/2014. 2. Vide impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 363 , 366, 324, 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Heard the learned Additional SPP for the State and the learned counsel for respondent/accused and perused the material on record. 4. It is the case of prosecution that on 19.04.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., in Bandepalli Village within the limits of Mudhol Police Station, the accused kidnapped the minor victim, aged about 9 years from the lawful custody of her parents, while she was sleeping on the right side of the Katta of lord Dyavamma (Urudmai) temple, with an intention to commit forcible sexual intercourse and took her towards the land of Shyamappa situated by the side of Halla in Bandepalli Village, fell on her and bit her nose and lips, caused injuries and removed her underwear, touched her private part and thereby committed the charged offences. 5. The learned counsel for respondent has not disputed that the victim was a minor as on the date of incident. The prosecution has relied on the School certificate issued by PW.12 – Headmaster of the School, wherein, the victim pursued her studies. As per Ex.P8, the date of birth of the victim is 18.08.2005 and therefore, she was aged about 9 years. 6. The incident according to the prosecution took place on 19.04.2014 at about 11.30 p.m. In the complaint –Ex.P1 lodged by the victim’s father, examined as PW.1, he has stated that on 18.04.2014 there was a marriage function in his house and all his relatives had come for the said function. On 19.04.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., he along with his minor daughter and other family members slept on the katta of Dyavammagudi. At about 00.10 hrs on 20.04.2014, his daughter came weeping. His cousin Somashekhara, mother- Gowramma (PW.5), brother- Ravindra (PW.6) and his sister-in-law Umadevi (PW.7) also got up. They saw his daughter had sustained bleeding injuries in her mouth and bite marks on her nose. At about 00.10 hrs on 20.04.2014, his daughter came weeping. His cousin Somashekhara, mother- Gowramma (PW.5), brother- Ravindra (PW.6) and his sister-in-law Umadevi (PW.7) also got up. They saw his daughter had sustained bleeding injuries in her mouth and bite marks on her nose. On enquiry, she informed them that while she was sleeping some one came and lifted and took her towards the land of one Venkatappa and on the pathway he bit her nose, lips and put his hand in her private part and spoiled her and when she screamed, he ran away from the spot. It is stated in Ex.P1 that complainant and others took the victim to Sedam Government Hospital for treatment. 7. PW.14 – Doctor has deposed in his evidence that on 20.04.2014 at about 2.30 a.m., victim’s father and others brought the victim girl to the hospital for treatment with a history of assault and rape and on examination he found the following injuries: 1. Abrasion over tip measuring 1 x 1 cm, red. 2. Abrasion over right face near right eye 1 x 1 cm, red. 3. Abrasion over right nexk, 1 x 2 cm, red (nail prick) 4. Swollen upper lip, red. 5. Vaginal tear 2 cm inner part side inflamed vagina middle part. No local stain. He has issued the medical certificate as per Ex.P11. 8. PW.18 – PI, on receiving the MLC intimation, visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 as per Ex.P1. He registered a case against unknown person for offences punishable under Section 363 , 366, 324, 376 r/w 511 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and forwarded the FIR – Ex.P15 to the Court. Thereafter, he conducted the spot mahazar - Exs.P2 and P3. On 22.04.2014, he once again visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim. 9. On 23.04.2014, the accused was arrested and his medical examination was conducted by PW.15, who issued the report as per Ex.P12. 10. The statements of other witnesses were recorded by PW.18. The statement of one Ramesh was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., marked as Ex.P10. On completion of investigation, PW.18 filed the charge sheet. 11. 9. On 23.04.2014, the accused was arrested and his medical examination was conducted by PW.15, who issued the report as per Ex.P12. 10. The statements of other witnesses were recorded by PW.18. The statement of one Ramesh was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., marked as Ex.P10. On completion of investigation, PW.18 filed the charge sheet. 11. It is the specific case of prosecution that on 19.04.2014, when the victim girl was sleeping in front of her house, on the katta of Dyavammagudi, along with her parents and other relatives, the accused kidnapped her towards the land of one Shyamappa, wherein he bit her nose, lips and sexually assaulted her and put his hand in her private part and thereby committed the charged offences. 12. The incident has taken place during night hours at about 11.30 p.m. In Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated that the victim girl came weeping and when he enquired, she informed him and others that some unknown person took her and assaulted her sexually. Admittedly, the FIR is registered against unknown person. On 22.04.2014, when PW.18 visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim, she is alleged to have named the accused as the one who committed the offence. In Ex.P1, it is nowhere stated that the victim has revealed the name of the accused. The description of the accused given was that he was wearing banyan, lungi and he was speaking in telugu and kannada language. It is stated that she informed him and others that she would identify the accused if she see him. However, it is not forthcoming from the evidence of PW.18 as to how the victim revealed the name of the accused even before his arrest and even before she identified him. Admittedly, the accused was arrested on 23.04.2014 i.e., after the statement of the victim was recorded. 13. Apart from the evidence of PW.2 i.e., the victim girl, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs.1, 5 to 9 and PW.16. Among the said witnesses PW.8 has turned hostile. 14. Before discussing the evidence of PW.2 i.e., the victim girl, it is necessary to appreciate the evidence of other material witnesses whom the prosecution is placing reliance. None of the other witnesses including PW.1 have seen the accused either kidnapping the victim or committing the offence. Among the said witnesses PW.8 has turned hostile. 14. Before discussing the evidence of PW.2 i.e., the victim girl, it is necessary to appreciate the evidence of other material witnesses whom the prosecution is placing reliance. None of the other witnesses including PW.1 have seen the accused either kidnapping the victim or committing the offence. A careful perusal of their evidence goes to show that they have given their statements on the basis of the information given by the victim – PW.2. Apart from narrating what the victim has informed, they have not specifically mentioned the name of accused. On the other hand, from their evidence it is clear that when the victim narrated about the incident, she was not aware of the identity of the accused. It can only be gathered from their evidence that after the victim narrated about the incident and noticing certain injuries, they took her to the Hospital wherein, she was given treatment. Further, from the evidence of PW.15 and the medical report at Ex.P11, it can seen that the victim was infact given treatment for the injuries sustained by her. 15. In her evidence, victim girl – PW.2 has deposed that on 19.04.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., she was sleeping on the katta of Dyavammagudi along with her father, grandmother, uncle and brother. She woke up and realized that someone had kidnapped her. He bit her nose and lips and put his hand in her private part etc., and when she screamed he ran away from the spot. For the first time in the Court, she has identified the accused as the one who committed the offence. She has nowhere stated that the accused was shown to her after his arrest and she has identified him. 16. In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, PW.2 has admitted that at the time of incident there was no electricity, which we also find from Ex.P1- complaint, and it was dark and therefore, she could not see the clothes worn by the accused. She has admitted that since it was dark she was not aware as to who kidnapped her etc. 17. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to mention that in the FIR, the name of the accused is not mentioned, on the other hand, FIR was registered against unknown person. The incident took place in the night hours. She has admitted that since it was dark she was not aware as to who kidnapped her etc. 17. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to mention that in the FIR, the name of the accused is not mentioned, on the other hand, FIR was registered against unknown person. The incident took place in the night hours. The witnesses have admitted that it was dark as there was no electricity. The victim herself has deposed in her evidence that she has not identified the person who kidnapped her as it was dark and she could not see the clothes worn by him. When such is the case, it is not forthcoming as to how the victim revealed the name of the accused when her statement was recorded on 22.04.2014, even prior to the arrest of the accused. The accused was not shown to the victim after his arrest. She has identified the accused for the first time in the Court. In that view of the matter, the evidence of the victim – PW.2 cannot be accepted to connect the accused with the crime. 18. It is the contention of the learned Additional SPP that the accused has confessed before PW.16 having committed the offence and the said witness has given his statement as per Ex.P10, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also supported the case of prosecution. He has therefore contended that it is an important piece of evidence which would corroborate the evidence of PW.2. 19. PW.16 has deposed that on 19.04.2014 at about 8-8.30 p.m., he and the accused were sitting and chatting near the Government School. Thereafter, the accused went towards his house, situated near Dyavammagudi and on the next day evening, accused met him and told that he kidnapped the victim girl. 20. A perusal of the evidence of PW.16 shows that on the following day of the incident, accused confessed before him having committed the offence. However, he did not disclose the same to anyone in the village or the Police, even though a case was registered on the very next day. 21. PW.18- I.O., has stated that the statement of PW.16 was recorded on 29.06.2014, i.e., after more than 2 months from the date of incident, which is after the arrest of accused. However, he did not disclose the same to anyone in the village or the Police, even though a case was registered on the very next day. 21. PW.18- I.O., has stated that the statement of PW.16 was recorded on 29.06.2014, i.e., after more than 2 months from the date of incident, which is after the arrest of accused. He has admitted in the cross- examination that PW.16 has not informed about the accused revealing to him about the incident, to any one in the village. The evidence of PW.16 therefore, does not inspire the confidence of the Court. 22. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence and material on record, though we find that the prosecution has established the fact that the victim, a minor girl sustained certain injuries on the night intervening 19 and 20.04.2014 and she narrated about the sexual assault committed on her, we find that there is no cogent, convincing and acceptable evidence placed on record to establish the charges levelled against the accused. The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused is based on appreciation of the evidence and material on record. This being an appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal, no compelling reasons are forthcoming to reverse the said finding. Accordingly, the following: ORDER : Appeal is dismissed.