Sri Bolaka Choma @ P T Choma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2025CRL.A/1056/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, 27-10-2025, CRL.A No. 1056 of 2022 (Justice S Rachaiah): POCSO/IPC 376(2)(j)(n) & 376AB conviction in S.C No.5002/2019 (Crime No.137/2018, Virajpet, Kodagu) set aside; PW.1 did not support prosecution, admitted marriage to accused and child; PW.2 Doctor admitted no age-determination examination; appeal allowed, appellant acquitted under 376(2)(j)(n), 376AB IPC and POCSO Ss.4 & 6; bail bond cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Conviction dated 30.08.2021 and order on sentence dated 02.09.2021 in Special Case No.5002/2019 set aside; appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 376(2)(j)(n), 376AB of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act; bail bond, if any, cancelled; Registry directed to communicate the order to the concerned jail authority. ¶¶57

Sri Bolaka Choma @ P T Choma Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43210 CRL.A No. 1056 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1056 OF 2022 (C)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. BOLAKA CHOMA @ P.T. CHOMA

¶11

S/O. LATE THOLA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶12

LABOURER,

¶13

C/O. KELAPANDA VISHWANATH @ VINU LINE HOUSE, KOLTHODU BYGODU VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218.

¶14

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY:

¶18

CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, VIRAJPET CIRCLE, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HCK, BANGALORE-01).

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43210 CRL.A No. 1056 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SMT. KAVERI P.K.,

¶23

W/O. LATE. KULIYA,

¶24

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT: C/O. KELAPANDA VISHWANATH @ VINU LINE HOUSE, KOLTHODU BYGODU VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218.

¶25

…PROPOSED RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTIONS DATED 30.08.2021 AND SENTENCE DATED 02.09.2021 PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO.5002/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU - MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET IN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(J)(N), 376 AB OF I.P.C. AND UNDER SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, ACQUIT THE APPELLANT ACCUSED FORM THE CHARGES AND HE MAY BE SET AT LIBERTY, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:43210 CRL.A No. 1056 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

This appeal is arising out of judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2021 and order on sentence dated 02.09.2021 passed in S.C No.5002/2019 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikere, Sitting at Virajpet, wherein the appellant /accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j)(n), 376 AB of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

¶35

The ranking of the parties in the Trial Court, henceforth will be considered as per their rankings in the Court for convenience.

¶36

Factual matrix of the case :

¶37

The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.12.2018 the complainant noticed a small bump on the stomach of her daughter, enquired her. She revealed the fact that the appellant herein had committed sexual assault on her when she was alone at home on several occasions. Consequently, she became pregnant for eight months. A

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43210 CRL.A No. 1056 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

complaint came to be registered against the appellant, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.137/2018 for the offences stated supra. After conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences stated supra.

¶41

Heard Sri.Tejas, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Pushpalatha B, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 – State and Sri.Kumara K.G, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶42

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record.

¶43

It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.1 would indicate that she has not supported the case of the prosecution and her evidence has not been properly considered by the Trial Court. The admission made by the witness ought to have been considered by the Trial Court. Having not considered the same, resulted in

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:43210 CRL.A No. 1056 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

passing the impugned judgment which is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

¶48

Per contra, the learned Additional SPP vehemently contended that the appellant has committed the offence on the victim, who was a minor and responsible for delivering the baby. The DNA test would indicate that he is the biological father of the child. As there are no infirmities in the findings of the Trial Court, it is not appropriate to allow the appeal. Making such submissions, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶49

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of all the witnesses and passed the judgment, which is not liable to be set aside.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the evidence of PW.1, it appears from the record that, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. She admitted that she joined the school when she was 10 years and further admitted that her age

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43210 CRL.A No. 1056 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

was 22 years. She further admitted that appellant and herself married each other and they are having a child. She further admitted that she had not made any statement before her mother that she had been subjected to sexual assault by the appellant.

¶54

When the victim herself stated that she had not been subjected to sexual assault and PW.2 – Doctor also admitted that she had not conducted any examination to determine the age of the victim, the findings of the Trial Court, in my considered view, is erroneous and not proper. Hence, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside.

¶55

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶58

(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2021 and order on sentence dated 02.09.2021 in Special Case No.5002/2019 on the file of II Additional District and

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:43210 CRL.A No. 1056 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikere, Sitting at Virajpet, is set aside.

¶63