Sri. Saddam Hussain S/O Nabisab and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri. Saddam Hussain S/O Nabisab and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Appeal No.200068/2014 (accused) partly allowed: conviction and sentence of accused Nos.2 to 4 under S.363 r/w 34 IPC set aside; conviction of accused No.1 under S.363 IPC confirmed, sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone plus fine of Rs.10,000/- (default simple imprisonment 06 months). Criminal Appeal No.200111/2014 (State) dismissed: conviction of accused No.2 under S.506(2) IPC confirmed, sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone plus fine of Rs.10,000/- (default simple imprisonment 03 months). Acquittals under S.366-A r/w 34 IPC, S.376 IPC and S.506 r/w 34 IPC upheld.

Issue for consideration

Whether the victim (PW1) was a minor on the date of the offence (01.01.2011), given conflicting age evidence — school certificate Ex.P11 (date of birth 01.06.1994) versus medical, radiological and dental estimates of 14-15 years with a two-year margin of error. +2 more

Court's answer

If the school certificate Ex.P11 issued through PW11 (date of birth of the victim 01.06.1994) is accepted, the victim was 16 years 7 months old as on the date of commission of the offence (01.01.2011); hence a serious doubt arises as to the exact age of the victim at the time of the incident.

Ratio / Principle

The medical, radiological and dental estimates of age (14-15 years) are approximate — PW18 admitted a margin of error of two years on either side — and therefore do not fix the victim's exact age; the Trial Court's finding that the victim was aged more than 16 years cannot be found fault with, since the doctors' estimate is contrary to the document got marked by the prosecution itself through PW11 (Ex.P11).

Key takeaways

The incident took place prior to the substitution of Section 375 IPC by Act 13 of 2013, prior to which a man was said to commit rape with or without the consent of the victim only when she was under 16 years of age; this makes the age determination decisive for the offences under S.366-A and S.376 IPC.ratio¶22
Considering the age of the victim, the prosecution having established that she was below the age of 18 years, accused No.1 has committed an offence under Section 363 IPC; his conviction under that section cannot be found fault with.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench (Mohammad Nawaz & K S Hemalekha, JJ.; oral judgment per Mohammad Nawaz, J.), 18.06.2025, in cross appeals from the judgment dated 08.04.2014 of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur in S.C.No.10/2012 — accused appeal under S.374(2) CrPC and State leave appeal under S.378(1)&(b) CrPC. HELD: (i) The victim's exact age was doubtful: the school certificate Ex.P11 (DOB 01.06.1994) showed her as 16 years 7 months on 01.01.2011, while the medical/dental/radiological estimates of 14-15 years carried a two-year margin of error; the incident predated the substitution of S.375 IPC by Act 13 of 2013 (rape with or without consent only where the victim was under 16), so the Trial Court's finding that she was more than 16 years could not be faulted. (ii) Nonetheless, the prosecution having established that the victim was below 18 years, accused No.1's conviction under S.363 IPC was confirmed. (iii) PW1's evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated (lodge-versus-shed discrepancy against mahazar Ex.P6; Ex.D1 retractions of the Puna detention and the alleged sale for Rs.1,20,000/-), so S.376 IPC against accused No.1 and S.366-A r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.1-4 were rightly acquitted; the threat-based excuse for the delayed complaint (01.01.2011 incident, complaint 07.04.2011) was rejected as not even a missing complaint was filed. (iv) Insufficient material existed against accused Nos.2-4 under S.363 r/w 34 IPC — their conviction and sentence were set aside — while accused No.2's conviction under S.506(2) IPC (criminal intimidation of PW1/PW8) was confirmed. DISPOSITION: CRL.A No.200068/2014 partly allowed; CRL.A No.200111/2014 dismissed. Sentences modified: accused Nos.1 and 2 each to the period already undergone (accused No.1: 02 years 11 months 27 days; accused No.2: 32 days) with fine of Rs.10,000/- each (defaults: simple imprisonment 06 months and 03 months respectively).