Dismissed¶72

The State of Karnataka v. Dinesha @ Dini @ Dayananda

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2026CRL.A/1202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018, decided 02.02.2026 (DB: H.P. Sandesh & Venkatesh Naik T., JJ., per Sandesh J.): State appeal under S.378(1)/(3) Cr.P.C against acquittal (Spl.C.No.116/2015, Mandya, 04.07.2017) in a minor-victim rape/POCSO/SC-ST (POA) Act case DISMISSED; victim P.W.1's testimony inconsistent with material omissions, uncorroborated by medical/FSL evidence (Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6 - no seminal stains/spermatozoa, no evidence of recent sexual intercourse); father and brother hearsay; Trial Court's reliance on Naredrakumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 SAR (Crl.) 511 SC noted; acquittal upheld.

What did the court decide?

None; the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court stands (the State's appeal was dismissed). ¶72

The State of Karnataka Vs Dinesha @ Dini @… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court stands (the State's appeal was dismissed).

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offences which were invoked against the accused and whether it requires interference of this Court? +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

The Trial Court did not err in acquitting the accused; having noted the medical evidence and the FSL report, this Court finds no ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court, so no interference is warranted.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

The evidence of P.W.1 (the victim girl) is not consistent and not trustworthy, and there are material omissions in the case of the prosecution.

¶56

Key takeaways

The victim's evidence is not supported by medical evidence: no injuries were found on the body including genitalia, seminal stains and spermatozoa were not detected on the articles sent for FSL, and on the basis of the FSL report Ex.P.6 the doctor gave a final opinion that there is no evidence that recent sexual intercourse took place.ratio¶60
The evidence of P.W.2 (father of the victim) and P.W.4 (brother of the victim), though supporting the prosecution, is hearsay, being based on information given to them by the victim girl.ratio¶57
Answering Point No.(ii), the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal dismissed - State's appeal under S.378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C against acquittal dated 04.07.2017 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl.C.No.116/2015 for offences under Ss.376, 506 IPC, Ss.4, 8, 12 and 18 POCSO Act and S.3(1)(xi) SC/ST (POA) Act - victim (P.W.1), aged about 15 years as per Exs.P.8 and 9, failed to state the exact day and date of the alleged incidents; her testimony suffered material omissions and contradictions and was not corroborated - medical evidence (P.W.6) disclosed no injuries including on genitalia, and on FSL report Ex.P.6 (no seminal stains or spermatozoa detected on the sealed articles) the doctor opined there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse - evidence of P.W.2 (father) and P.W.4 (brother) hearsay - Trial Court had relied on NAREDRAKUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), 2012 SAR (Crl.) 511 SC - Division Bench (H.P. Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T., JJ.; judgment per Sandesh J.) held there was no ground to reverse the Trial Court's finding and dismissed the appeal (order dated 02.02.2026).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1202 OF 2018

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MALAVALLI RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

DINESHA @ DINI @ DAYANANDA, S/O MANDYA KEMPAIAHNA NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O AMRUTHESWARANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶18

LAKSHMI, D/O HENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O AMRUTHESWARANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶19

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.03.2024)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR A.S., ADVOCATE FOR

¶24

SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2025, SMT. P.V.KALPANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.07.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN SPL.C.NO.116/2015 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 8, 12 AND 18 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(xi) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶31

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶32

This appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’ for short), Section 376 of IPC read with

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Section 4 of POCSO Act and also Sections 8 and 18 of POCSO Act read with Section 511 of IPC.

¶36

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that one month prior to 05.10.2015 while the minor girl P.W.1 was going to school by walk, the accused has followed her, dragged her by holding her hands and teased and also made gestures towards her. On 20.09.2015 at about 1.00 p.m., at the cattle shed of Amrutheshwarahalli belonging to C.W.2 Eregowda, the accused has subjected her for sexual act, who is a minor and thereafter, has put her and her family members in fear of death. It is also the case of the prosecution that when P.W.1 was going to school by walk, the accused has wrongfully restrained her, teased, unrobbed and attempted to rape on her and thereby, committed an offence under Sections 8 and 18 of POCSO Act read with Section 511 of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and also relied upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to 14(a) and got marked M.O.1 to M.O.15. Ex.D.1 portion in the statement of P.W.1 are marked by the defence.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The Trial Court considered the evidence of P.W.1 victim girl, P.W.2 father of the victim girl, P.W.3 owner of cattle shed, P.W.4 brother of the victim girl, P.W.5 friend of the victim girl, P.W.6 doctor, who subjected the victim girl for medical examination, P.W.7 and P.W.8 witnesses to the spot mahazar, P.W.9 teacher, P.W.10 WPC, who recorded the statement of victim girl, P.W.11 and P.W.12 Investigating Officers and acquitted the accused.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the

¶41

present appeal is filed by the State.

¶42

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State would vehemently contend that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material evidence adducted by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. Non-appreciation of evidence and material on record in the proper perspective has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The evidence of P.W.1 victim girl is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. She has corroborated the averments made in the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1. The learned counsel contend that the Trial Court has not

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in its proper perspective and hence, it requires interference of this Court to set aside the order of the Trial Court.

¶46

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The learned counsel contend that the evidence of P.W.1 victim girl is not consistent and trustworthy. The evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by the medical evidence and hence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused.

¶47

Having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

¶48

(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offences which were invoked against the accused and whether it requires interference of this Court?

¶49

(ii) What order?

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Point No.(i):

¶53

It is the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was aged about 15 years as per the documents at Exs.P.8 and 9. The Trial Court has taken note of that the accused and P.W.1 are residents of the same village and no dispute with regard to the said fact. But P.W.1 used to go to Kandegala everyday for school by bicycle and this fact is also not in dispute. Whether the incident as alleged by the prosecution on 05.10.2015 has taken place, is to be considered and considering the evidence of P.W.1, she fails to say the exact day and date of alleged incident before the Court. Besides, she deposes that on that particular day itself, accused had put threat to her life and this is an omission on the part of P.W.1 with regard to the case of the prosecution. There is no corroborative evidence available for the prosecution. Further, she has deposed that on 20.10.2015 at about 1.00 p.m. when she had come to backyard to attend nature call, she was subjected to rape by the accused at the cattle shed of P.W.3. She might have confused the date of alleged incident, since the date of incident was on 20.09.2015 as per the case of the prosecution. According to her, on 03.11.2015, on her way to

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the school, the accused had attempted to commit rape on her. But in order to prove the case of the prosecution, the very evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent and not trustworthy. There are material omissions in the case of the prosecution.

¶57

It is pertinent to note that though the father of the victim girl P.W.2 has been examined and P.W.4 supports the case of prosecution, they are hearsay witnesses. Their evidence is based on the information given to them by the victim girl. But the victim girl’s evidence is also not supported by medical evidence. The same is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.18. The evidence of the doctor is very clear that she has subjected P.W.1 for medical examination and given the report in terms of Ex.P.5 and though she has been examined, there is no evidence to say that there was forcible sexual intercourse and apart from that, there are no injuries found on the body including genitalia at the time of examination. Further, her testimony reveals clothes and materials are taken and sent for FSL. The FSL report reveals that seminal stains were not detected in item No.1 pubic hair, item No.3 shirt, item No.4 pant swab, item No.5 underwear,

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

item No.6 pubic hair, item No.7 urethral swab, item No.8 vaginal swab, item No.10 rectal swab, item No.11 chudidar top, item No.13 chudidar pant, item No.14 brassier and item No.15 petticot and spermatozoa were not detected in item No.9 and the content of item No.2 was disintegrated. On the basis of the FSL report Ex.P.6, the doctor has given final opinion stating that as per the general physical examination, genital examination and RFSL report, there are no evidence to say that recent sexual intercourse has taken place.

¶61

The Trial Court has taken note of the material on record, particularly the judgment in the case of NAREDRAKUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in 2012 SAR (Crl.) 511 SC , wherein the Apex Court has made an observation that “where evidence of prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injuries on her person, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence.” The Trial Court taking note of the same, comes to the conclusion that this judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand and in detail

¶62

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:5764-DB CRL.A No. 1202 of 2018

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

discussed in paragraph No.20 that the evidence of P.W.1 is suffering from material contradiction and omissions, which infirm the case of the prosecution. Besides, her evidence is not supported by the medical evidence and hence, acquitted the accused.

¶65

Having taken note of the material available on record, though the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the victim girl is aged about 15 years and even though she is a minor as defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, there must be material before the Court with regard to the charges alleged against the accused and there is no any ingredients of the offences, which have been invoked against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent and the evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of the brother of the victim is only based on the say of P.W.1 and P.W.1 evidence is not supported by medical evidence. The Trial Court in detail taken note of the medical evidence as well as the FSL report and when such material not indicates the act of the accused, we do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court.

¶66