State appeal against acquittal in a POCSO case where prosecution relied solely on a doctor's dental age estimate. Court held age proof inadequate under Juvenile Justice Act standards, victim's conduct showed no force or confinement, acquittal findings were not perverse, and dismissed the appeal upholding the accused's acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.147 OF 2021 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)
AND:
Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka
PERMANENT ADDRESS LEGAL VILLAGE, BARSUYI THANA KATTAHAR DISTRICT BIHAR STATE.
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
BENGALURU CITY. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT IN VIEW OF ORDER DATED 4-7-2022)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.S. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-1; SMT. AISHWARYA S. HANCHATE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANIRUDH CHAMUNDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12-3-2026 AUTHORIZED BY HCLSC)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12-11-2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.409 OF 2014 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 343, 376 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3 READ WITH SECTION 4 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.11.2019 passed by the Court of the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Special C.C.No.409 of 2014, wherein the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 343, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, "POCSO Act").
HC-KAR
by inducing her, from the house of Sagairaj near the Church of Mestripalya and wrongfully confined her for 12 days in an under-construction building at No.1-A, Davis Road and during the said period, committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim.
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
conclusion that the victim without any resistance, was residing with the accused for 12 days and no attempt was made by her to escape from that place and if really the accused had forcibly taken her to the building and confined her against her wish, she would have disclosed the same to others, even when the accused had introduced her as his wife to the owner of the building.
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
victim is aged between 14 to 16 years and therefore, the
prosecution has proved that the victim was a minor, hence, established the charges levelled against the accused.
complainant would also contend that the victim has supported the case of prosecution and her evidence clearly
reveal that she was kidnapped by the accused under threat and confined in an under-construction building for 12 days. She contended that in the absence of any other documents regarding proof of age, the age has to be determined by medical examination and in the present case such medical examination was conducted by PW4 to ascertain the age of the victim and as per Ex.P2, age of the victim is estimated between 14 - 16 years. She contended that the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge to acquit the accused are therefore not in accordance with law.
HC-KAR
accused has contended that this is an appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal wherein the learned Sessions Judge, having regard to the entire evidence and material on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the charges levelled against the accused. He contended that in view of the said finding, the accused has double benefit and his innocence is further reinforced.
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
confined her in the under-construction building against her wish. He has therefore sought to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
prosecution has established the age of the victim in accordance with law, to show that she was a minor as on the date of commission of the offence and whether the victim was forcibly taken by the accused and subjected to sexual assault.
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
also reiterated the complaint averments.
the victim at any point of time complained to him, during her stay with the accused in the said under-construction building, that she was forcibly taken by the accused and confined in the said building. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that the victim resisted the company of the accused and she was forcibly detained in the building.
The fact that the victim went along with the accused and stayed for 12 days itself shows that there was no force or
HC-KAR
threat on the part of the accused and the victim was not confined against her wish by the accused. In this background, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution has established beyond doubt that the victim was a minor as on the date of commission of the offence. Since, even if the victim has willingly accompanied the accused and stayed along with him and there was any sexual intercourse committed on her, then the charges could be held to be proved if the victim is a minor as on the date of commission of the offence.
v. State of T.N., reported in (2024) 17 SCC 684, held
that wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the POCSO Act, the Courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The three documents in order of which the Juvenile Justice Act requires consideration is that the concerned Court has to
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
determine the age by considering the following
documents:
"(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the examination Board concerned, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board."
has referred to the decision in the case of Sanjeev
Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P ., reported in (2019) 12
SCC 370 . The relevant para is extracted hereunder:
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
“17. … Clause (i) of Section 94(2) places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the examination board concerned in the same category, [namely, (i) above.] In the absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and (ii) that age determination by means of medical analysis is provided. Section 94(2)(i) indicates a significant change over the provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a) of the 2007 Rules made under the 2000 Act. Under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence and it was only in the event of the certificate not being available that the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i) both the date of birth certificate from the school as well as the matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed in the same category.”
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
the age of the victim as between 14 - 16 years, on the basis that her 3rd molar teeth has not developed. Except the said examination, it appears that no other examination, like radiological/ossification test or latest medical examination was conducted to ascertain the age. From Ex.P2, it is clear that there was no X-ray taken, as the parents of the victim refused to take the X-ray. Except Ex.P2, there is no other document such as the school certificate or birth certificate, etc., produced in proof of the age/date of birth of the victim.
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
established that the victim was a minor as on the date of incident.
judgment of acquittal.
23 . In a case of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by the acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court. Even if two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the accused has to be accepted.
“42(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.”
State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 , at
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
paragraph No.25 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court
was pleased to observe as below:
“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”
the evidence and material on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established charges levelled against the accused. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are not illegal or perverse. Upon examining the evidence and material on record, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for
NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB CRL.A No. 147 of 2021
HC-KAR
interfering with the impugned judgment passed by the
trial Court. Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed .
ii) Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled for a
honorarium of Rs.10,000/- payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE
Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE
AM, LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether prosecution proved the victim was a minor per Section 94 JJ Act standards for POCSO applicability.
Whether the victim was kidnapped and confined against her will by the accused.
Whether appellate court should interfere with trial court's acquittal judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Yuvaprakash v. State of T.N.Relied on¶18
(2024) 17 SCC 684 · Who else cites this
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.Relied on¶19
(2019) 12 SCC 370 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa and others v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶24
(2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal PradeshRelied on¶25
(2014) 15 SCC 666 · Who else cites this
Jafarudheen and others v. State of KeralaRelied on¶26
(2022) 8 SCC 440 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 4 enactments
The State of Karnataka by Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru, represented by the State Public Prosecutor
Raju @ Rajeev Kumar
Smt. Jabeena
Mohammad Nawaz
Venkatesh Naik T
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
