The State challenged acquittal on charges of kidnapping, confinement and sexual assault under the IPC and POCSO Act. The High Court held that guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, rejected the appeal and confirmed the acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1925 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TEREKANAMBI POLICE STATION, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHIJITH K.S. - HCGP)
AND:
2 NAGAPPA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BOMMANAHALLI ELLE LAND,
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
BOMMANAHALLI, GUNDLUPETE TALUK CHAMRAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED, UNRPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: A)GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.06.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHAMARAJANAGAR IN SPL. CASE NO.65/2014 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366A, 344, 376 OF IPC AND U/S 5(j)(ii) AND 5(1) OF POCSO ACT, 2012 R/W SEC.376(2)(n) OF IPC; B) SET ASIDE. THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.06.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHAMARAJANAGAR IN SPL. CASE NO.65/2014 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366A, 344, 376 OF IPC AND U/S 5(j)(ii) AND 5(1) OF POCSO ACT, 2012 R/W SEC.376(2)(n) OF IPC; C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366A, 344, 376 OF IPC AND U/S 5(j)(ii) AND 5(1) OF POCSO ACT, 2012 R/W SEC.376(2)(n) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘DICTATING JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, K SOMASHEKAR .J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, in S.C.No.65/2014 dated
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
02.06.2016 acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 366A, 344, 376 of the IPC, 1980 and for offences under Section 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. This appeal has been filed by the State seeking to set-aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and to consequently to convict the accused / Respondent No.1 herein for the offences leveled against him.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
It transpires from the case of the prosecution that the complainant / Nagappa son of Kariyappa none other than the father of the victim, had filed a complaint as per Exhibit P1 stating that his daughter / victim whose date of birth was 30.05.1997 and who had studied upto 7th Std and thereafter discontinued her studies, was residing with her parents. During January 2014, the complainant / PW-1 along with his wife and daughter had been to Chikkallur fair of Kollegal Taluk and they had stayed there. At that time, one Manja son of Mahadevaiah of Utthuvalli village had also come for the said fair and he had gone to the complainant and introduced himself as belonging to Lingayath community of Madalavadi and complainant believed the words of said Manja /accused and talked with him and he also supplied food to him and at that time the accused also befriended the daughter of complainant. It is further averred that on 02.03.2014, the complainant and his wife had gone to attend Aradhana of Padaguru Mutt by leaving their daughter alone in the house. But when they came
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
back in the evening from the said Aradhana function of Padaguru Mutt, they found their daughter missing. The complainant though enquired about his daughter’s whereabouts with his neighbourers, they did not know anything. The daughter of the complainant though had a mobile phone, it was stated that the complainant was not aware of its number and hence had enquired his relatives and others, but his daughter was not traced and in the meantime the wife of the complainant was not keeping well. He had not filed any missing complaint till then.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
daughter but she was not traced. However, he came to know from the residents of Utthuvalli that Manja, son of Mahadevaiah had brought one girl stating that he had married her. But he was not there in the house and they were not aware as to where he had gone. Coming to know of the same, the complainant had requested the police to trace his daughter and to take action against the accused. He lodged the complaint on 06.07.2014 at about 11.30am with
the PSI, Terekanambi Police Station. Shri N.Kumaraaradhya / PW.19, who received the said
complaint, had registered the case and sent the FIR to the Court. Subsequent to registration of the crime, PW.19 / PSI had visited the scene of crime i.e., the house of the complainant on same day and conducted mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Thereafter PW.19 searched for accused and victim girl from 07.07.2014 to 17.07.2014 and PW.19 on receiving credible information on 18.07.2014 that
the accused and victim girl were in Yelakkuru village, he went to Yelakkuru village and brought the accused and
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
victim girl. Thereafter PW.19 recorded the voluntary statement of accused and got examined both accused and victim girl in Government Hospital, Gundlupet. PW.19 / I.O. then completed investigation and laid the charge-sheet against accused before the Committal Court for the offences reflected in the charge-sheet.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
to examination PW-1 to PW-19 and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P26. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to examination as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. relating to incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accordingly, the evidence of the prosecution was brought to the knowledge of the accused and his statement was recorded wherein the accused had declined the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Accordingly it was recorded. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to enter into defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. But the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence. Accordingly, it was recorded.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
Nagamallamma, parents of victim girl, PW.2 / victim girl. PW.3 / Guruswamy and PW.6 / Mahadevappa who were panch witnesses to spot mahazar marked at Ex.P.2; PW.5 / Dharmavathi, another material witness who is a relative of complainant who had observed the victim girl in Utthuvalli Village subsequently intimated the same to complainant; PW.7 / Murthy and PW.8 / Dundaiah belonging to the village of accused Utthuvalli, who had observed the accused having brought the victim girl to his house; PW.9 / Raju, PW.10 / Mahadeshwara Shankri and PW.11 / Rechappa, who are panch witnesses to Ex.P.13 mahazar, which was conducted in Yelakkuru village, where accused had kept the victim girl for some days from where the police took accused and victim girl to their custody; PW.12 / Shankaraiah, a relative of accused who has been examined to prove that the accused had brought the victim girl and kept the victim girl in his house at Yelakkuru village; PW.13 / Govindaiah, PW.15-Ajith Kumar, being panch witnesses to Ex.P.17 mahazar, which was conducted in the house of
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
PW.12 / Shankaraiah at Yelakkuru village; PW.14 / Natarajan who was the Headmaster of Higher Primary School, Bommanahalli village, who has issued date of birth certificate, admission register extract of the victim girl to prove her date of birth; PW.16 / Dr.Lalitha, the lady medical officer who examined the victim girl and issued certificate as per Ex.P.20; PW.17 / Dr. Nagendramurthy being another medical officer who examined the accused and issued certificate as per Ex.P.21; PW.18 / Siddaiah being the Village Accountant, who has issued assessment register extract marked at Ex.P.22; PW.19 / N.Kumararadhya being the PSI, Terekanambi Police Station, who received the complaint and registered the case and investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against accused.
the date of birth of the victim girl maintained by the Registrar of births as per Exhibit P24. Exhibit P18 is the school admission certificate and Exhibit P19 is the copy of the School Admission Register extract. The same revealed
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
the age of the victim to be 17 years at the time of the incident. However, Exhibit P24 revealed the age of the victim to be 16 years at the time of the incident. Hence, she was below the age of 18 years at the time of the incident and hence, consent of the victim girl for abduction as well as sexual intercourse on her, is immaterial in view of the fact that she was a minor as on the date of the alleged incident. This observation has been made by the Trial Court to arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the victim girl was a minor as on the date of the incident.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
that she did not know the accused and accused was not introduced to her in Chikkallur fair and she had not talked with accused over the phone. Further, she had also stated that her marriage was not fixed with the son of her maternal aunt by name Mahendra and she had not intimated said fact to the accused on 02.03.2014 and accused had not committed rape on her and she had not become pregnant. However, it is pertinent to note that PW-2 has clearly admitted that she has a child aged about 1 year. When a question was posed by the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor as to who was the cause for said child, the victim girl did not answer and she kept quite for about 2 or 3 minutes and thereafter she started to weep and same is recorded in the deposition. Though PW.2 was treated as hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, she did not admit that during 2014, when she had been to Malai Mahadeshwara Hills, she came to know the accused and thereafter accused was talking over the mobile phone and she had got exchanged the mobile phone
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
with accused and therefore intimacy developed in between them. She further denied that thereafter they had been to Chikkellur fair and they had talked with accused at that time. She further clearly denied that her marriage was fixed with son of her maternal uncle during March 2014 and she was not willing for the same and therefore she intimated said fact to the accused over the phone on 01.03.2014 and then on 02.03.2014, when her parents had been to Padaguru for Aradhana, the accused came and took her to Bangalore. She further clearly denied that the accused had taken her to Bangalore and thereafter to Sri Rangapatna and then he had kept her in Utthuvalli. She also denied in her cross-examination that about 2 or 3 months of her missing when she was in Utthuvalli, her relative PW.5 had observed her from Tempo. She also denied that though order was passed by this Court on 20.01.2015 asking her to give blood for DNA test, she did not agree for the same. Hence, DNA test was not conducted by drawing the blood of PW.2, accused and the child. A suggestion was
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
made to PW.2 by the Spl.Public Prosecutor during the course of her cross-examination that she did not agree to give blood sample for DNA test only on the ground that it would prove the paternity and accused will be punished. But she denied the same. But during the course of her cross-examination, she stated that she was 18 years old in the year 2014. But as per Ex.P.24, her date of birth is 02.05.1998 and she was 16 years old at the time of incident. Though this PW.2 was cross examined at length after treating her hostile by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, nothing worth was elicited through her mouth to show that she was kidnapped by the accused with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her and subsequently accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Hence, the Trial Court has held that the evidence of PW.2 does not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence. Since PW.2 denied that she was kidnapped by accused and she was sexually assaulted by accused, the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5 cannot be relied on whose say
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
is based on the version of the victim girl. On these grounds, the Trial Court has rendered an acquittal judgment by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused, in spite of prosecution placing sufficient evidence on record, is not proper and convincing and the same requires interference by this Court. Thus, it is contended that viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is contrary to facts and material evidence on record. Hence, the learned HCGP prays to allow the appeal and consequently to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and convict the appellant for the offences charged against him.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
another mahazar at Exhibit P13 and another mahazar at Exhibit P20 these are the mahazars subjected by the I.O. in the presence of PW-18, PW-19, PW-3 and PW-9 to PW-11. But the panch witnesses did not withstand the versions of their statements.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
that she had intercourse with one Manja since 2.3.2014. On the basis of this history allegedly given by victim girl, it was argued on behalf of the Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor that presumption under Section 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 will come into play and therefore accused is liable for conviction. No doubt, under Section 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 the presumption is to be raised when a person is prosecuted for committing offences under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act unless the contrary is proved. However, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent / accused that the said presumption is not conclusive one and it is rebuttable presumption and therefore corroboration is required. It is further urged that the victim girl who was examined before the Court as PW.2 has clearly stated that she did not know the accused and accused had not committed rape on her and she had no sexual intercourse with the accused. Further, in Ex.P.20, the signature of the victim girl has not been taken as consent
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
for the medical examination and so also for having given history before the Medical officer. PW.16-Dr.Lalitha in her cross-examination has stated that on the basis of the history given by the victim girl, she mentioned the same in column No.12. She further clearly admitted that she did not enquire the name of father and address of said Manja. In Ex.P.20, PW.16 has clearly stated that no injuries anywhere over the body were found. Therefore, the conviction could not have been based only on the basis of the alleged history and hence the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
and Ex.P.21 do not come to the aid of the prosecution to connect the accused with the guilt charged against him.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
accused for some 3 or 4 months and they also came to know that Terekanambi Police took accused and victim girl to their custody. Even they denied to have stated before police as per Ex.P.11 and 12, which are their statements recorded by Investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC.
panch witnesses to spot mahazar marked at Ex.P.2. PWs.3 and 6 are panch witnesses to the spot mahazar where the victim girl was residing at Bommanahalli village from where the accused allegedly kidnapped the victim girl. PW.3Guruswamy states in his evidence that he has signed the mahazar and he identifies the mahazar at Ex.P.2, but he states that he is not aware of the contents of the Ex.P.2 mahazar. PW.6 states in his evidence that he also signed mahazar and he does not know as to what is written in the mahazar. Though PW.3 and 6 were treated as hostile by prosecution and cross examined by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, they did not admit that the police had come to
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
the house of PW.1 on 06.07.2014 and observed the spot and conducted the mahazar and they signed the mahazar. As per prosecution, these two witnesses also came to know through PW.1 with regard to the kidnapping of the victim girl by accused and subsequently victim girl became pregnant by accused. But they denied during the course of their cross-examination by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor that they came to know through PW.1 that accused became familiar to victim girl when she had been to Chikkellur fair and thereafter the accused kidnapped the victim girl when PW.1 and 4 had been to Aradhane of Padaguru Mutt and subsequently the victim girl became pregnant. They clearly denied to have stated before police as per Ex.P.9 and 10 which are their statements recorded by Investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC. Nothing worthwhile was elicited through their mouth during the course of cross-examination by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor in order to prove the ingredients of offence. Hence, evidence of PWs.3 and 6 do
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
admit that on 18.07.2014, the police had come to the house of Shankraiah son of Mahadevaiah and accused pointed out the spot and police observed the same and conducted mahazar and they signed mahazar. They also clearly denied that the kidnapping of the victim girl by the accused was published in daily newspaper and thereafter PW.10 told accused to go out from his house and accused and victim girl had stayed in the house of PW.10 for some days. They clearly denied to have stated before police as per Ex.P.14 and 15 which are their statements recorded by Investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC. Hence, evidence of PWs.9 to 11 does not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
them. Though PW.12 was treated as hostile by prosecution and cross examined by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, he did not admit that 15 days earlier to 18.07.2014 accused had brought a girl to his house alleging that he was loving her and he would marry said girl after taking consent of his parents and parents of the victim girl and subsequently it was published in the newspaper that the accused had kidnapped the said girl and then he told accused to go out from his house or else he would intimate the police over the phone and in the meantime, the victim girl became pregnant. He clearly denied to have stated before police as per Ex.P.16 which is statement recorded by Investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC. Hence, evidence of PW.12 does not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
their evidence that Ex.P.17 mahazar contains their signature, but they state that they are not aware of the contents of Ex.P.17. Though PWs.13 and 15 were treated as hostile by prosecution and cross examined by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, they did not admit that on 18.07.2014, in between 11.30am and 12.10pm, the police came to the house of the accused and accused himself pointed out the spot where he had kept the victim girl and police observed the same and conducted mahazar and they signed mahazar. Hence, evidence of PWs.13 and 15 also do not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
victim girl, PW.4 the mother of the victim girl and another relative of victim girl PW.5-Dharmavathi have supported the case of prosecution. But PWs.1 and 4 are not the eyewitnesses to the kidnap. Further, the alleged kidnap took place on 02.03.2014, whereas PW.1 lodged the complaint on 06.07.2014. There is delay of 4 months in lodging the complaint. It is the explanation of PW.1 that his wife was not keeping well and therefore he could not lodge complaint earlier. But wife of complainant i.e. PW.4 has nowhere stated from what disease she was suffering from during that period.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
Ex.P.20 the medical certificate also does not contain the signature of the victim girl. Therefore, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to connect the accused with the guilt charged against him. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is contended that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference in this appeal. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent / accused seeks for dismissal of the appeal as being devoid of any merits.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
the said Aradhana function of Padaguru Mutt, they found their daughter missing. Even after a thorough search made in various places, they could not find their daughter / the victim girl. However thereafter on 20.05.2014, the wife of the younger brother of the complainant by name Dharmavathi / PW-5 who was proceeding in an autorickshaw at Utthuvalli village had observed the daughter of complainant in the said village and informed the same to her parents. It is thereafter that the complainant had been to Utthuvalli village and he searched for his daughter and some persons of Utthuvalli village intimated the complainant that Manja, son of Mahadevaiah had brought one girl stating that he has married her. But he was not there in the house and they were not aware as to where he has gone. Thereafter the complainant had lodged a complaint on 06.07.2014 at about 11.30 am and the PSI, Terekanambi Police Station i.e., N.Kumaraaradhya / PW.19 received said complaint and registered the case and sent FIR to the Court. On 18.07.2014, the accused and victim
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
girl were traced in Yelakkuru village by PW.19, who recorded the confession statement of accused and got examined both accused and victim girl in Government Hospital, Gundlupet. PW.19 investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 366A, 344, 376 IPC and under Section 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
has accompanied the accused and had committed the above said acts on her own will and volition. The further circumstance to be noticed is that she has totally refused to give her sample blood for DNA analysis in order to prove the paternity of the child born to her. Further, the clothes of accused and victim girl were not collected in order to examine with regard to the presence of seminal stain and spermatozoa. Hence, evidence of PW.17 / Dr. Nagendramurthy and Ex.P.21 / Medical report of accused does not come to the aid of the prosecution to connect the accused with the guilt charged against him. Hence, there is no medical evidence to prove that the accused was in fact the father of the child born to her. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused from the offences alleged.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
his house. The remaining witnesses are formal witnesses. PW.3 / Guruswamy and PW.6 / Mahadevappa are panch witnesses to spot mahazar marked at Ex.P.2. PWs.3 and 6 are panch witnesses to the spot mahazar where the victim girl was residing at Bommanahalli village from where the accused allegedly kidnapped the victim girl. PW.3 / Guruswamy states in his evidence that he has signed the mahazar and he identifies the mahazar at Ex.P.2, but he states that he is not aware of the contents of the Ex.P.2 mahazar. PW.6 / Mahadevappa states in his evidence that he also signed mahazar but he does not know as to what is written in the mahazar. Though PW.3 and 6 were treated as hostile by prosecution and cross examined by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, they did not admit that the police had come to the house of PW.1 on 06.07.2014 and observed the spot and conducted the mahazar and that they signed the mahazar. As per prosecution, these two witnesses also came to know through PW.1 / Nagappa with regard to the kidnapping of the victim girl by accused and subsequently
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
victim girl became pregnant by accused. But they denied the same during the course of their cross-examination by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor. They have also clearly denied to have stated before police as per Ex.P.9 and 10 which are their statements recorded by Investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC. Nothing worthwhile was elicited through their mouth during the course of cross-examination by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor in order to prove the ingredients of offence. Hence, the evidence of PWs.3 and 6 also does not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence.
PW.11 / Rechappa are said to be the panch witnesses to Ex.P.13 mahazar. Ex.P.13 mahazar was conducted in the house of PWs.10 and 12 in Yelakkuru village. But PWs.9, 10 and 11 state in their evidence that they simply signed Ex.P.13 mahazar and they were not aware of the contents of the mahazar and they have not given any statement before
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
police. Though PWs.9, 10 and 11 were treated as hostile by prosecution and cross examined by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, they did not admit that on 18.07.2014, the police had come to the house of Shankraiah son of Mahadevaiah and accused pointed out the spot and police observed the same and conducted mahazar and they signed mahazar. They also clearly denied that the kidnapping of the victim girl by the accused was published in daily newspaper. They clearly denied to have stated before police as per Ex.P.14 and 15 which are their statements recorded by Investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC. Hence, evidence of PWs.9 to 11 also do not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
his son i.e., PW.10-Mahadeshwara Shankri. But he denied
that the accused had brought a girl and kept her in their house for 15 days earlier to 18.07.2014 and thereafter police came and apprehended them. Though PW.12 was treated as hostile by prosecution and cross examined by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, he did not admit that 15 days earlier to 18.07.2014 accused had brought a girl to his house alleging he would marry said girl and subsequently it was published in the newspaper. He clearly denied to have stated before police as per Ex.P.16 which is statement recorded by Investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC. Hence, evidence of PW.12 also does not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
hostile by prosecution and cross examined by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, they did not admit that on 18.07.2014, in between 11.30am and 12.10pm, the police came to the house of the accused and accused himself pointed out the spot where he had kept the victim girl and police observed the same and conducted mahazar and they signed mahazar. Hence, evidence of PWs.13 and 15 also does not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
victim girl and another relative of victim girl namely PW.5 / Dharmavathi have supported the case of prosecution. But PWs.1 and 4 are not the eyewitnesses to the kidnap.
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
column No.12 of Ex.P.20 the history allegedly given by the victim girl is shown by PW.16 Dr.Lalitha. But as stated supra, Ex.P.20 the medical certificate does not contain the signature of the victim girl. Further, the victim girl has refused to give her blood sample in order to prove that accused was the father of her child. Therefore, we find that there is no cogent, corroborative, positive, consistent and convincing evidence to connect the accused with the guilt of the accused. Hence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Trial court had extended benefit of doubt and on that concept, rendered an acquittal judgment by assigning sound reasons and also justifiable reasons. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not arise to call for interference as contended by the State / appellant. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be rejected as being devoid of merits. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following:
CRL.A No. 1925 of 2016
O R D E R
The appeal preferred by the appellant / State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in Special Case No.65/2014 dated 02.06.2016 acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 344, 376 of the IPC and under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) of the POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Did the prosecution establish the alleged kidnapping, confinement and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt so as to warrant interference with the acquittal?
Did the invocation of Section 29 of the POCSO Act warrant conviction on the evidence presented?
4 provisions across 4 enactments
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RANGASWAMY @ MANJA
NAGAPPA
K.SOMASHEKAR
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
