Allowed

Shri Siddharth S/O Shivaji Chavan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2024CRL.P/101676/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition by accused in a POCSO and child marriage case. The court held that school records were not conclusive proof of the minor victim's age and that failure to conduct an ossification test was an investigation failure, warranting bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.112/2023 on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to trial attendance, non-tampering with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.

Shri Siddharth S/O Shivaji Chavan Vs the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9453 CRL.P No. 101676 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101676 OF 2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. SIDDHARTH S/O. SHIVAJI CHAVAN, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: MANAKAPUR, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN - 591 216.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. R. S. GUDODAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SADALAGA P S, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COPURT OF DHARWAD.

¶11

SMT. SHIVUBAI W/O. ANAND MANE, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI WORKER, R/O: MANAKAPUR, TALUKA: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591216.

¶12

CHANDRASHEKAR HIGH LAXMANKATTIMANI COURT OFKARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGED ON BAIL THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN SADALGA P.S. CRIME NO. 112/2023 CASE IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, BELAGAVI IN SPL. C. NO. 481/2023 OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 376(2)(n), 377 OF IPC AND SEC. 4, 6 AND 17 OF PROTECTIONS OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND 9, 10, 11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9453 CRL.P No. 101676 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard Sri. R.S. Gudodagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata R Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.

¶19

The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in Crime No.112/2023 wherein the respondent-police have registered a case against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sections 4, 6 and 17 of Protections of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘POCSO’), 2012 And 9, 10 and 11 of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

¶20

The complaint came to be registered by the Supervisor of Anganavadi on instruction of CDPO stating that the family members of the petitioner have performed the marriage of the victim, though she was minor along with accused No.1/petitioner. The petitioner after marrying the victim girl committed sexual assault against her will. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police registered the case in Cr.No.112/2023 for the aforesaid offences. After

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9453 CRL.P No. 101676 of 2024

¶22

investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet.

¶23

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner that the marriage between the victim and the petitioner had taken place with the consent of the elders of the family members and the victim girl had attained 18 years at the time of marriage. However, the school certificate which they have produced are not sufficient to conclude that she had not completed 18 years as the parents of the victim categorically stated that at the time of marriage, victim had completed 18 years.

¶25

It is further submitted that her ossification test has not been done by the concerned doctor to determine the age of the victim. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Manakapur, Nippani Taluk, Belgaum District and he is a driver by profession and earning member of the family. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9453 CRL.P No. 101676 of 2024

¶27

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the victim in the presence of the elders. The fact remains that she was minor and had not attained 18 years of age. Therefore, the alleged offences are squarely made out against the petitioner. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint and charge sheet, undoubtedly, the elders of the family have performed the marriage of the victim and the petitioner. As per the records, her age is 15 years and 8 months. According to the family members, she had completed 18 years on the date of marriage. When the family members are very confident in their statement, school records are not conclusive proof to determine the age of the victim. Moreover, the investigating Officer ought to have subjected her for ossification test which is very essential to determine the age of the victim. Not conducting the ossification test to

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9453 CRL.P No. 101676 of 2024

¶30

determine the age of the victim would amount to failure on the part of the investigating officer. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant bail on the said ground alone.

¶31

8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed.

¶34

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.112/2023 of Sadalaga Police Station on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶35