Dismissed¶70

Mr Sachin v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2025CRL.P/5769/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (J.M. Khazi, J.), CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022 (decided 23.08.2025): S.482 Cr.P.C petition challenging rejection of S.311 Cr.P.C application to recall prosecutrix (PW1) for further cross-examination in a S.376 IPC / S.6 POCSO rape trial (Spl.C.No.191/2019; Crime No.94/2021). DOB fixed as 26.03.2003 via school record Ex.P6 and PW1's own testimony; love-affair suggestions already made and admitted; minor's consent immaterial; no grounds to recall PW1 or interfere; petition dismissed; trial to proceed within reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

PW-6, Headmistress of the school where the prosecutrix studied, deposed that Ex.P6 is the prosecutrix's date of birth certificate showing her date of birth as 26.03.2003, and the prosecutrix herself gave the same date of birth during her evidence. ¶52

Mr Sachin Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 09.06.2022 rejecting the petitioner's application under S.311 Cr.P.C to recall PW1 for further cross-examination should be interfered with / quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Contrary to the petitioner's claim of mechanical rejection, the trial Court passed a detailed order giving reasons for rejecting the S.311 application.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

¶52

Key takeaways

Further cross-examination of PW-1 suggesting she was admitted to school two years belatedly would not be of any help, since the defence did not collect the prosecutrix's birth certificate to show that her date of birth was not correctly reflected in the school records.ratio¶57
The love-affair suggestions the defence wished to put to PW-1 had already been made, and PW-1 admitted the said fact.ratio¶61
Even if a love affair between the accused and the prosecutrix is accepted, once it is established that she was below 18 years the physical relationship cannot be treated as consensual; consent of a minor is immaterial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C by the sole accused in Spl.C.No.191/2019 (offences under S.376 IPC and S.6 POCSO Act; Crime No.94/2021, Mangaluru) challenging the order dated 09.06.2022 of the II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, D.K., Mangalore rejecting his S.311 Cr.P.C application to recall PW1 (prosecutrix) for further cross-examination on her age and an alleged love affair. The Court noted: the prosecutrix's date of birth stands recorded as 26.03.2003 both in the school record Ex.P6 (deposed to by PW-6, the Headmistress) and in the prosecutrix's own evidence; PW-2 (father) spoke of a possible two-year belated school admission, but the defence did not collect the birth certificate to show the school record was incorrect, so further cross-examination on that line would not help; the love-affair suggestions had already been made and admitted by PW-1; and even if a love affair is accepted, a person below 18 years cannot consent — consent of a minor is immaterial — while any contradictions in the prosecution case remain available to the accused. The trial Court's rejection was by a detailed, reasoned order, not mechanical. The petition was filed in 2022 at the 313-statement stage with stay obtained, keeping the trial pending three years; the Court observed that in sexual assault/POCSO matters the defence too must not unnecessarily drag on proceedings. Held: no justifiable grounds to recall PW1 or to interfere with the trial Court's order; petition rejected; trial Court directed to proceed and dispose of the matter within a reasonable time, not being influenced by the observations made; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the trial Court by e-mail.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5769 OF 2022

¶7

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR SACHIN S/O VEERAPPA GOWDA AGED 22 YEARS R/AT HOLEHODDU, NEMMURU CHIKKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 575 412

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶15

MS. SPANDANA, D/O DUGAPPA.K.B, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.11/208/29, K.V.S MAHAKALI, SHAKTHINAGARA, PADAVU VILLAGE, MANGALORE-575004

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2022 PASSED ON I.A. FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 311 OF CR.P.C IN SPL.C.NO.191/2019 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.94/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused has filed this

¶24

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to challenged order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the trial Court rejecting application filed by him to recall PW1.

¶25

In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that a complaint came to be filed against him for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO act and charge sheet was filed in Spl.C.No.191/2019. Recording of evidence is going on. The prosecutrix is examined on 01.02.2020. There is serious dispute with regard to her age. During her cross examination, few important questions regarding the age of

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the prosecutor and that it was a love affair were left out. Therefore, petitioner wanted to further cross examine her and filed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Based on the statement objections filed by the prosecution, the trial Court rejected, on 09.06.2022, by observing that already those questions have been covered.

¶29

2.1 There are many contradictory statements with regard to the age of the prosecutrix and on this aspect petitioner want to further cross examine her. However, the trial Court without appreciating this aspect has mechanically rejected the application without assigning any proper and question and reasons. The petitioner ought to have given, an opportunity to further cross examine the Prosecutrix and hence the petition.

¶30

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent

¶31

No.1/State submitted that already the prosecutrix is thoroughly cross examined. At this stage when the case is

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

set down for recording 313 statement, as an afterthought, petitioner filed the application. Rightly the trial Court rejected the application, giving proper reasons. By filing this petition, petitioner has secured stay in the year 2022, and for all these three years matter kept pending staying further proceedings. There are no justifiable grounds to allow the petition and pray to reject the same.

¶36

4. Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶37

Petitioner is the sole accused before the trial

¶38

Court. A Charge sheet came to be filed against him alleging that accused is a distant relative of prosecutrix. At the relevant point of time, prosecutrix was aged 16 years. On 26.01.2019, petitioner visited the house of prosecutrix as he was supposed to attend military selection camp. On the next day at 4:00 AM, when the prosecutrix was studying, petitioner entered her room and committed rape

¶39

on her twice and requested her not to inform anyone, with

¶40

a promise that he would marry her. Again on 25.02.2019,

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

petitioner visited the house of prosecutrix and stayed in

¶44

the night and on the next morning at 4.00 a.m while the prosecutrix was studying, again petitioner committed rape on her. As a result of the sexual assault made on the prosecutrix, she became pregnant. This fact came to the knowledge of the of her parents only when she was examined by the doctor and fact of her pregnancy came to light. Later prosecutrix gave birth to a daughter. The DNA test also reveal that petitioner is the biological father of the child.

¶45

After conducting detailed investigation, the

¶46

concerned police filed charge sheet. Accuse pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of the prosecution case in all 10 witnesses are examined including the prosecutrixs as PW1. When the case was posted for recording 313 statement of the petitioner, he filed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall PW1 for further cross examination, contending that some important questions are left out. After considering the objections filed by the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

prosecution, the trial Court rejected the said application.

¶51

Against the said order, the present petition is filed.

¶52

It is pertinent to note that at the time when the incident took place, prosecutrix was studying in first year PUC. She was stated to be aged 16 years. PW-6 S.R.Lavita, Headmistress, Sacred Heart English Medium Higher Primary School, Mangaluru, where the prosecutrix studied, has deposed that Ex.P6 is the date of birth certificate of prosecutrix. According to it, the date of birth of prosecutrix is 26.03.2003. During the course of her evidence, also the prosecutrix has given her date of birth as 26.03.2003 and during her cross examination, she has stated that she do not know as to what documents are there regarding her date of birth.

¶53

It is also pertinent to note that the father of the prosecutrix who is examined as PW-2 is an electrician. It appears he is not an educated person. He is unable to state the date of birth of his daughter. During his cross

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

examination, he has stated that his daughter might have

¶57

been admitted to school belatedly by two years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that based on this statement of PW-2, the defence counsel wanted to further cross-examine PW-1. It is not the case of the defence that the prosecutrix was born during 2001 and while admitting her to the school, deliberately, her year of birth is given as 2003. For this, the birth certificate of prosecutrix is required. The defence has not collected the birth certificate of prosecutrix to say that in the school records, her date of birth is not correctly reflected. Such being the case, the further cross-examination of PW-1 suggesting that she was admitted to school two years belatedly would not be of any help as she may not be in a position to give answer to the said question.

¶58

In the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C, it is stated that the defence has failed to cross-examined PW-1 regarding the love affair between her and the accused. However, the evidence of PW-1 clearly indicates

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

that the said suggestions have been already made and she has admitted the said fact. Even if it is accepted that there was love affair between the accused and the prosecutrix, ultimately if it is established that she was below the age of 18 years, then it cannot be accepted as a consensual physical relationship, consent of a minor is immaterial. Of course, if there are any contradictions forthcoming in the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is at liberty to take advantage of the same. There are no justifiable grounds for recalling PW-1 for further cross-examination. In fact, the trial Court has passed a detailed order giving reasons for rejecting the application.

¶62

It is pertinent to note that petitioner has come up with the present petition in the year 2022 at the end of the trial, when the case was posted for 313 statement and secured stay of further proceedings. For all these three years, the matter is kept pending. If really, the grievance of petitioner was genuine, he could have got the petition disposed of at the earliest. It is not only the

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:33135 CRL.P No. 5769 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

responsibility of the Court and the prosecution to dispose

¶67

of the cases at the earliest, more particularly, cases arising sexual assault and arising out of POCSO Act, it is also the responsibility of the defence to see that the matters are not unnecessarily dragged on.

¶68

Anyhow, there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i) Petition filed by the Petitioner/Accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is Rejected.

¶71

ii) The trial Court shall proceed with the

¶72

matter and dispose of the same, within a reasonable time, not being influenced by

¶73

the observations made during the course

¶74

of this order.