The State through Vs Sri Saddam Hussain and Ors. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The State through Vs Sri Saddam Hussain and Ors. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Appeal No.200068/2014 (accused-appellants) partly allowed: conviction and sentence of accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC set aside; conviction of accused No.1 under Section 363 IPC confirmed, sentence modified to the period already undergone (02 years 11 months 27 days) with fine of Rs.10,000/- (default simple imprisonment 06 months); conviction of accused No.2 under Section 506(2) IPC confirmed, sentence modified to the period already undergone (32 days) with fine of Rs.10,000/- (default simple imprisonment 03 months). Criminal Appeal No.200111/2014 (State's application for leave under Section 378(1)(b) CrPC) dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the victim (PW1) was a minor — in particular below 16 years, the pre-2013-amendment threshold in Section 375 IPC — on the date of the offence, given conflicting age proof (school certificate Ex.P11 showing DOB 01.06.1994 versus medical/dental/radiological estimates of 14–15 years). +4 more

Court's answer

The Trial Court's finding that the victim was aged more than 16 years on the date of the incident cannot be found fault with: the doctors' estimate (14–15 years) is expressly approximate with a margin of error of two years either side (PW18), and conflicts with the school certificate Ex.P11 (DOB 01.06.1994) produced by the prosecution itself through PW11; the incident predated the substitution of Section 375 IPC by Act 13 of 2013, before which intercourse with a girl under 16 amounted to rape with or without her consent.

Ratio / Principle

PW1's evidence that she was raped in a lodge room by accused No.1 is contrary to the prosecution case and the mahazar (Ex.P6 drawn in a shed); she nowhere stated she was raped in the shed, and no mahazar was conducted in the room or lodge.

Key takeaways

On the FSL report (Ex.P15) and clinical examination, PW13 opined there is no evidence of occurrence of rape; the old hymeneal tear could not be timed (PW13 in cross-examination).ratio¶126
The prosecution's explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint (threat by the accused) cannot be accepted, since not even a missing complaint was filed by the victim's family between the incident (01.01.2011) and the complaint (07.04.2011).ratio¶132
From the content of the victim's evidence it can be safely gathered that she was not forcibly taken by accused No.1 to Puna nor subjected to forcible sexual intercourse; her evidence is inconsistent and uncorroborated, and the offence under Section 376 IPC is therefore not made out against accused No.1.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cross-appeals — by the accused (Crl.A.200068/2014 under S.374(2) CrPC) and by the State (Crl.A.200111/2014 under S.378(1)(b) CrPC) — against the judgment dated 08.04.2014 and sentence order dated 09.04.2014 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur in S.C.No.10/2012, whereby accused Nos.1–4 were convicted under S.363 r/w 34 IPC and accused No.2 under S.506(2) IPC, while accused Nos.1–4 were acquitted under S.366-A r/w 34 IPC, accused No.1 under S.376 IPC, and accused Nos.1, 3, 4 under S.506 r/w 34 IPC. Held (oral judgment per Mohammad Nawaz J., High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, 18.06.2025): (i) the Trial Court's finding that the victim was over 16 years on the incident date (01.01.2011) cannot be found fault with — the school certificate Ex.P11 (DOB 01.06.1994, through PW11) prevails over the medical/dental/radiological estimates of 14–15 years, which PW18 admitted carry a margin of error of two years either side; the incident predated the substitution of S.375 IPC by Act 13 of 2013, when intercourse with a girl under 16 constituted rape with or without consent; (ii) the S.376 offence is not made out against accused No.1 — PW1's testimony is inconsistent with her further statement (Ex.D1 denying removal to Puna, lodge detention and alleged sale for Rs.1,20,000/-), places the rape in a lodge room contrary to the prosecution case and mahazar Ex.P6 (shed), is unsupported by PW13/FSL (Ex.P15) which found no evidence of rape, is uncorroborated, and the belated complaint (07.04.2011) is unexplained by even a missing complaint; the acquittals under S.376 and S.366-A are neither illegal nor perverse; (iii) insufficient material against accused Nos.2–4 for S.363 r/w 34 IPC — their conviction and sentence set aside; (iv) accused No.1's conviction under S.363 IPC confirmed (victim below 18 established) and accused No.2's conviction under S.506(2) IPC confirmed (criminally intimidating PW1 and her father per PW1/PW8); (v) sentences modified to the period already undergone (accused No.1: 02 years 11 months 27 days; accused No.2: 32 days) with fines enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each (defaults: simple imprisonment 06 months and 03 months respectively). Crl.A.200068/2014 partly allowed; Crl.A.200111/2014 dismissed.

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the victim (PW1) was a minor — in particular below 16 years, the pre-2013-amendment threshold in Section 375 IPC — on the date of the offence, given conflicting age proof (school certificate Ex.P11 showing DOB 01.06.1994 versus medical/dental/radiological estimates of 14–15 years).¶68
The court held
The Trial Court's finding that the victim was aged more than 16 years on the date of the incident cannot be found fault with: the doctors' estimate (14–15 years) is expressly approximate with a margin of error of two years either side (PW18), and conflicts with the school certificate Ex.P11 (DOB 01.06.1994) produced by the prosecution itself through PW11; the incident predated the substitution of Section 375 IPC by Act 13 of 2013, before which intercourse with a girl under 16 amounted to rape with or without her consent.ratio¶105
2.
Whether accused No.1 committed rape on the victim (Section 376 IPC), i.e., whether she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse during the alleged detention at Puna.¶122
The court held
PW1's evidence that she was raped in a lodge room by accused No.1 is contrary to the prosecution case and the mahazar (Ex.P6 drawn in a shed); she nowhere stated she was raped in the shed, and no mahazar was conducted in the room or lodge.ratio¶127
3.
Whether accused Nos.1 to 4 (or any of them) kidnapped/took away the victim with common intention (Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC).¶141
The court held
Considering that the prosecution established the victim was below the age of 18 years, accused No.1 committed the offence under Section 363 IPC, and the conviction recorded against him cannot be found fault with.ratio¶141
4.
Whether accused No.2 committed criminal intimidation (Section 506(2) IPC) by threatening the victim and her father not to disclose the incident.¶141
The court held
Accused No.2 criminally intimidated the victim and her father by threatening them not to disclose the incident (evidence of PW1 and PW8); his conviction under Section 506(2) IPC is confirmed and cannot be found fault with.ratio¶141
5.
Whether the sentences imposed at trial ought to be modified in view of the period of imprisonment already undergone by accused Nos.1 and 2 and the time elapsed since the 2011 incident.¶153
The court held
Having regard to the 14 years elapsed since the incident and accused No.1's custody of 02 years 11 months and 27 days, the sentence already undergone is sufficient; his sentence under Section 363 IPC is modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone plus a fine of Rs.10,000/- (default: simple imprisonment 06 months).ratio¶164

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 08.04.2014 (order of sentence dated 09.04.2014) in S.C.No.10/2012: convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC and accused No.2 under Section 506(2) IPC; acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 366-A read with Section 34 IPC, accused No.1 under Section 376 IPC, and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC.¶54
Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur · 08.04.2014
Prior proceeding
Alleged incident of 01.01.2011: accused No.1 allegedly forcibly took the victim (PW1) from land bearing Sy No.312/A of Maladkal Village to have illicit intercourse, accused Nos.2 to 4 helping with common intention; she was allegedly taken in a Tata ACE vehicle (Regn. KA 36 A 726) to Devadurga and then to Puna and confined, during which accused No.1 allegedly raped her.¶61
Prior proceeding
Charges framed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 366-A read with Section 34 of IPC.¶62
Prior proceeding
Charges framed against accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and against accused No.1 under Section 376 of IPC.¶65
Prior proceeding
Trial: prosecution examined PW1 to PW21 and marked Exs.P1 to P25; defence marked Ex.D1 to D5 (portion of further statement of PW1 and statement of PW8).¶66
Prior proceeding
Complaint (Ex.P1) lodged on 07.04.2011 at about 5 p.m.; case registered by PW20 (PSI) and FIR (Ex.P24) forwarded to the jurisdictional Court; investigation completed by PW21, who filed the charge sheet.¶81
Prior proceeding
By the impugned judgment the Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 366-A read with Section 34 IPC, accused No.1 under Section 376 IPC, and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC.¶55
Prior proceeding
Same judgment convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC and accused No.2 under Section 506(2) IPC.¶59
Prior proceeding
Trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to simple imprisonment for 03 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC.¶145
Prior proceeding
Trial Court sentenced accused No.2 to simple imprisonment for 01 year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 506(2) IPC.¶147
Prior proceeding
Order of sentence dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Court of Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur in S.C.No.10/2012.¶159