Sri Keshava Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Keshava Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court stand upheld; Registry directed to send back the Trial Court records along with a copy of the judgment for issuance of the conviction warrant, if not already issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

Court's answer

The DNA report (Ex.P23) shows the DNA profile of the baby is consistent with having come from the victim and the accused, confirming the accused is the biological father of the baby delivered by the victim.

Ratio / Principle

Despite lengthy cross-examination of the material witnesses, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their version; there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the victim PW2.

Key takeaways

The victim's date of birth is 16.06.2002 as per Ex.P14 school admission extract; the FIR was lodged on 21.03.2019 when she was stated to be 5 months pregnant, so the victim was about 17 years at the time of the offence, and the Court found no reason to suspect the prosecution's contention on age.ratio¶47
The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 420, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and he is liable for conviction.ratio¶47
In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the accused is liable for sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 420 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. by the convicted accused challenging the judgment of conviction dated 10.11.2020 and order of sentence dated 11.11.2020 of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in S.C.No.106/2019, convicting him under Sections 448, 376(2)(n) and 420 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act (RI 1 year/Rs.1,000; RI 7 years/Rs.5,000; RI 10 years/Rs.15,000, with default sentences). The accused, aged 24, was alleged to have had penetrative sexual intercourse repeatedly with the victim (PW2, aged about 17; DOB 16.06.2002 per school admission extract Ex.P14) in her house on the pretext/promise of marrying her and later refused to marry her; the victim became pregnant and delivered a baby. The DNA report (Ex.P23) confirmed the accused as the biological father. Cross-examination elicited nothing to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. Holding: prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; under Section 42 POCSO Act the accused was liable to sentence; the Trial Court had imposed the minimum sentence. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:27508 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2020 (C)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KESHAVA S/O RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT HODALI VILLAGE, RONURU HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA - 563 135

&APPELLANT

(BY SMT. UMME SALMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001.

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT HODALI VILLAGE, RONURU HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA KOLAR - 563 135

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.11.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27508 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2020

HC-KAR

SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN S.C.NO.106/2019 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 376(2)(N), 420 OF IPC AND SEC.6 OF PREVENTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AND ETC.,

THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The accused in S.C.No.106/2019, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, is impugning the judgment of conviction dated 10.11.2020 and order of sentence dated 11.11.2020, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 376(2)(n), 420 of IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.15,000/for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, with default sentences.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27508 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2020

HC-KAR

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, the victim -PW2 was aged about 17 years. The accused under the pretext of marrying her, had committed forcible sexual intercourse repeatedly in her house and later, he refused to marry her. Thereby, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet for the above said offences. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. The accused has appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19 and got marked Ex.P1 to 30 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration these materials on record came to the conclusion that, the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27508 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2020

HC-KAR

Heard Smt. Umme Salma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

<Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:

REASONS

It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the accused aged 24 years under the promise to marry the victim girl- PW2 aged about 17 years, had committed penetrative sexual intercourse repeatedly in her house and later, refused to marry her. PW1 is the father of the complainant who lodged the first information on 21.03.2019,

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27508 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2020

HC-KAR

alleging commission of the offence and stating that the victim was 5 months pregnant. PW2 - the victim has supported the case of the prosecution. PW3 - the brother of the victim has also deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. PW4 is the Doctor, who examined the victim and subjected her for scanning through PW16 - the radiologist. According to the report, the victim was 5 months pregnant. PW5 is the mahazar witness. PW6 is the Doctor, who had drawn the blood samples of the victim and the accused for DNA test. PW7 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, who has drawn the spot sketch as per Ex.P9. PW8 is the PDO, who issued the extract of demand register as per Ex.11 where the incident had occurred, the said house is standing in the name of Muniyamma. PW9 is the Doctor, who examined the accused. PW10 is the Head Master of the school, who issued Ex.P14 - admission extract pertaining to the victim, as per which the date of birth of the victim is 16.06.2002. PW11 is the police constable, who has drawn the spot panchanama - Ex.P2. PWs.12 and 13 are the independent witnesses, who have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW14 is the police constable, who collected the information about the accused and apprehended him. PW15 is

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27508 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2020

HC-KAR

the police constable, who accompanied the victim for medical examination. PW17 is the Investigating Officer who registered the FIR. PW18 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW19 is the Scientific Officer who has issued DNA report as per Ex.P23.

PWs.1 to 3 have categorically stated about the offence committed by the accused. The medical report supports the contention of the prosecution. The DNA report is as per Ex.P23, according to which, the DNA profile results of baby is consistent with having come from the victim and the accused, and the DNA sampling was matching with the DNA profile result of sample blood sent in item Nos.1 and 2. Thereby, the DNA report confirms that the accused is the biological father of the baby delivered by the victim.

Even though the material witnesses are crossexamined at length, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version. There is absolutely, no reason to disbelieve the version of the victim - PW2. The medical records produced as per Ex.P5, 6 and 23, clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27508 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2020

HC-KAR

The prosecution also examined PW10 - the HeadMaster of the school, who deposes about Exs.P14 - the admission extract pertaining to the victim. As per Ex.P14, the date of birth of the victim is 16.06.2002. The first information came to be lodged on 21.03.2019, and it is the contention of the prosecution that by that time, the victim was 5 months pregnant. Thus the victim was about 17 years at the time of commission of the offence. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to suspect the contention taken by the prosecution. Hence, I am of the view that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 448, 420, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and he is liable for conviction.

In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the accused is liable for sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 420 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the materials on record and imposed minimum

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27508 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2020

HC-KAR

sentence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. sentence.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

Negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed .

Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and needful action i.e., to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

SPV/BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33