Mr.Sathisha Vs State of Karnataka

MR. SATHISHA @ SNEHA HOTEL SATHISHA @ SATI S/O. MR. PUTTASWAMY AGED 25 YEARS WORKING IN A HOTEL R/O. J. M. ROAD, MUDIGERE TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

¶10

PERMANENT R/O. SIRAGUNDA VILLAGE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI I. S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MUDIGERE POLICE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, H.C.G.P.)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 16.03.2021, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC.1 AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN SPL.CASE (POCSO) NO.68/2018, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(f), 366-A, 376(2)(i), R/W SECTIONS 376(3), 376(2)(n) AND 506 OF I.P.C. AND SECTIONS 5(j)(ii), 5(l) AND 5(n) R/W SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence dated 16.03.2021 passed in Special Case (POCSO) No. 68/2018 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as trial Court), by which the accused-

¶26

appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under;

¶27

ದಂಡ ಪ��ಾ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 235(2) ರನ�ಯ , ಆ�ೋ� ಸ�ೕಶ ಅ��ಾ� �ೆ�ೕಹ ೋ!ೇ" ಸ�ೕಶ ಅ��ಾ� ಸ� , ಈತನನು� &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 376(2)( ಎ( ), 366- ಎ , 376(2)(i) ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 376(3), 376(2)( J£ï) 506 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆPÉÆìÃ )ಾ*+ಯ ಕಲಂ 5( eÉ )(ii) , 5( J¯ï ) 5( J£ï ) ,-ಾಹ. ಕಲಂ 6 ರ/ಯ�0 1ಾ/ರುವಆ�ೋಪಗಳ5ೋ6ಎಂದು�ೕ1ಾ.78 , ,-ೆ9ೆ ಗು:ಪ/85ೆ .

¶28

ಆ�ೋ�ತನನು� )ೇ;ದನಂತರ , ,-ೆಯ7ಧ.:ಸಲು)ಾ=+:85ೆ .

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

i) &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 376(2)(i) ಸಹ>ಾಚಕ 376(3) ಾಗೂ @PÉÆìÃ )ಾ*+ಯ ಕಲಂ 5(Bೆ )(ii) ,-ಾಹ. ಕಲಂ 6 ರ/ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧಗ;9ೆ ಸಂಬಂD8ದಂ�ೆ , ಆ�ೋ�9ೆ 20 ವಷ.ಗಳ ಕFಣ Bೈಲು ,-ೆ ಾಗೂ 40,000/- ರೂIಾ= ದಂಡ, JDಸKಾL5ೆ . ದಂಡದ ಹಣ 7ೕಡಲು ತ�Mದ�0 ಆ�ೋ�ಯು ಒಂದು ವµÀðzÀ �ಾ5ಾ Bೈಲು ,-ೆಯನು� ಅನುಭJಸತಕPದು+.

¶33

ii) &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 376(2)(ಎQ) ಮತುS @PÉÆìÃ )ಾ*+ಯ ಕಲಂ 5(ಎ") ,-ಾಹ. ಕಲಂ 6 ಅಪ�ಾಧಗ;9ೆ ಸಂಬಂD8ದಂ�ೆ , ಆ�ೋ�9ೆ 20 ವಷ.ಗಳ ಕFಣ Bೈಲು ,-ೆ ಾಗೂ 40,000/- ರೂIಾ= ದಂಡ, JDಸKಾL5ೆ . ದಂಡದ ಹಣ 7ೕಡಲು ತ�Mದ�0 ಆ�ೋ�ಯು ಒಂದು ವಷ.ದ �ಾ5ಾ Bೈಲು ,-ೆಯನು� 4 ಅನುಭJಸತಕPದು+.

¶34

iii) &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 376(2)(ಎ() ಮತುS @PÉÆìÃ )ಾ*+ಯ ಕಲಂ 5(ಎQ) ,-ಾಹ. ಕಲಂ 6 ರ/ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧಗ;9ೆ ಸಂಬಂD8ದಂ�ೆ , ಆ�ೋ�9ೆ 20 ವಷ.ಗಳ ಕFಣ Bೈಲು ,-ೆ ಾಗೂ 40,000/- ರೂIಾ= ದಂಡ, JDಸKಾL5ೆ . ದಂಡದ ಹಣ 7ೕಡಲು ತ�Mದ�0 ಆ�ೋ�ಯು ಒಂದು ವಷ.ದ �ಾ5ಾ Bೈಲು ,-ೆಯನು� ಅನುಭJಸತಕPದು+.

¶35

iv) &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 366-ಎ, ರ/ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧ)ೆP ಸಂಬಂD8ದಂ�ೆ , ಆ�ೋ�9ೆ ಮೂರು ವಷ.ಗಳ ಕFಣ Bೈಲು ,-ೆ ಾಗೂ 10,000/- ರೂIಾ= ದಂಡ, JDಸKಾL5ೆ . ದಂಡದ ಹಣ 7ೕಡಲು ತ�Mದ�0 ಆ�ೋ�ಯು ಮೂರು �ಂಗಳ �ಾ5ಾ Bೈಲು ,-ೆಯನು� ಅನುಭJಸತಕPದು+.

¶36

v) &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 506 ರ/ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧ)ೆP ಸಂಬಂD8ದಂ�ೆ ಆ�ೋ�9ೆ ಒಂದು ವಷ.ದ �ಾ5ಾ Bೈಲು ,-ೆಯನು� JDಸKಾL5ೆ .

¶37

TೕKೆ ೇ;ದ ಎKಾ0 ಗಣ7ೕಯ Bೈಲು ,-ೆಗಳU ಏಕ)ಾ�ೕನ>ಾL Wಾ�S9ೆ ಬರತಕPದು+, ಆದ�ೆ ದಂಡ Iಾವ�ಸಲು Jಫಲ>ಾದ�0 JD8ರುವ Bೈಲು ,-ೆಗಳU, ಗಣ7ೕಯ Bೈಲು ,-ೆಯ ನಂತರ, ಒಂದರ ನಂತರ ಒಂದರಂ�ೆ Wಾ�S9ೆ ಬರತಕPದು+.

¶38

ದಂಡ ಪ��ಾ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 428 ರನ�ಯ, YಾZ�ಾಂಗ ಬಂಧನದ�0ದ+ ಅವDಯನು� Bೈಲು ,-ೆಯ ಅವD=ಂದ ಕ/ತ9ೊ;ಸಲು ಆ�ೋ�ಯು ಅಹ.75ಾ+Yೆ .

¶39

ದಂಡದ ಹಣ ಒಟು\ ರೂ.1,30,000/- ವಸೂ��ಾದ�0, ಅದರ Iೈ� ರೂ.1,00,000/- ವನು� (ಒಂದು ಲ] ರೂIಾ=ಗಳನು�) Yೊಂದ ^ಾಲ�9ೆ , ಈ9ಾಗKೇ )ಾನೂನು �ೇ>ಾ Iಾ�D)ಾರ_ಂದ 7ೕಡKಾLರುವ ರೂ.2,95,000/-ದ Bೊ�ೆ9ೆ , ೆಚು`ವ: ಪ: ಾರ ಹಣ>ಾL 7ೕಡಲು ಆ5ೇ,85ೆ .

¶40

�ೕ�.ನ ಉbತ ಪ��ಯನು� ಈ ಕೂಡKೇ ಆ�ೋ�9ೆ 7ೕಡತಕPದು+."

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2018 at about 12:40 p.m. a complaint was received by the Station House Officer by one Smt.Savithri-PW1 mother of the victim alleging that she is residing near Shadimahal, J.M. Road, Mudigere, having 4 children, namely Devaraja, Kumari 'S' (victim), Chethan and Bharath. That about a year back her husband left them. Victim girl aged 14 years was studying in 6^th Standard at S.P.G.S School, Mudigere. Accused was son of the sister of the complainant, who was working in Sneha Hotel, Mudigere and was staying in the house of the complainant. That on 27.09.2018, complainant had gone to sleep and woke up at 07:40 a.m. on 28.09.2018 and did not find her daughter i.e. victim girl. There was no trace of victim girl even after searching in the relative's house. Since accused was also found missing, the complainant suspected the victim to have left home with the accused. Hence, complaint was filed seeking assistance of the police.

¶44

On registration of the case, investigation was commenced by the respondent-police. On 02.10.2018 statement of the complainant was recorded. That on

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

01.10.2018 it was learnt that the victim girl was in the house of

¶48

her sister-PW4 at Gendehalli Village. Accordingly, complainant proceeded to the said village along with her brother MalleshPW5 and brought the victim back to her house.

¶49

Upon enquiry, victim girl disclosed that in the month of August 2018, accused after all the family members having gone to sleep had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Though she had resisted threatening her not to disclose the said matter to anyone and accused continued to have sexual intercourse on victim girl after all the family members slept. Victim girl being under fear did not disclose the said matter to anyone. She missed her menstrual cycle. That on 27.09.2018 she informed the same to the accused and he brought a pregnancy test kit from the medical store situated at Mudigere and after checking it was learnt that the victim girl was pregnant. As she was scared to inform the said matter to her mother, she informed the same to the accused. The same night at 10:00 p.m. while the members of the family gone to sleep, accused took the victim to Mudigere bus stand and from there to the house of PW4, who is elder sister of the

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

complainant situated at Baskal, Gendehalli Village in an Auto.

¶53

That the victim girl lied to her aunt that she came along with the accused her mother had scolded her and stayed there that night.

¶54

On 28.09.2018, the victim girl and appellant went to the house of her uncle, Mallesha-PW5, situated in Garje Village and stayed there. On 29.09.2018, they went to the house of their relative Doddaiah-PW6 situated at Hadlagere and stayed there saying the very same reason. That on 30.9.2018, accused brought the victim girl back to her sister's house situated at Baskal, Gendehalli Village. The complainant had called the accused. On the same day, the accused had left the victim girl in the house of her sister PW4 and went away. Thereafter, the complainant along with her brother-PW5 went to the said village and brought the girl to the respondent-police station, who incorporated the additional provisions of Section 366, 376(2)(f)(i)(n) of IPC and Section 5(j) (ii),5(l), 5(n) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act to the complaint which was earlier registered for Section 363 of IPC.

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Accused was arrested on 09.10.2018. After

¶59

completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. Accused denied the charges. Matter was taken up for trial.

¶60

Prosecution has examined 14 witnesses marked as PW.1 to PW.14 and exhibited 37 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P37. Accused did not led any evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded and he denied the evidence made available against him.

¶61

The trial Court framed the following points for consideration;

¶62

"1) 2018 ರDಗ�\ �ಂಗ;ನ�0 , ಮೂ/9ೆ�ೆ !ೌQ , Bೆ . ಎಂ . ರ�ೆSಯ�0ರುವ Yೊಂದ ^ಾಲ�ಯ �ಾ= Wಾ�ಾ -1 ರವರ ^ಾ/9ೆ ಮYೆಯ�0 ಎಲ0ರೂ ಮಲL5ಾ+ಗ , ಒಂದು �ಾ�� , ಮತುS ನಂತರದ ಹಲ>ಾರು _ನಗಳ�0 ಆ�ೋ�ಯು ತನ� ಸಂಬಂD�ಾದ Wಾ�ಾ -2 ಅIಾ�ಪS Yೊಂದ ^ಾಲ�ಯ TೕKೆ KೈಂLಕ ಅ�ಾZWಾರ ಎಸL , &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 376(2)( ಎ( ) ರನ�ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧವYೆ�ಸL5ಾ+Yೆ , ಎಂಬುದನು� ಅdeೕಜYೆಯುಸಂಶ�ಾ�ೕತ>ಾLರುಜು>ಾತುಪ/85ೆ*ೕ ?

¶63

2) ¢: 27.09.2018 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ PÉÃªÀ® 14 ವಷ. ವಯ8gನ Wಾ�ಾ -2 Yೊಂದ ^ಾಲ�ಯನು� ಆ)ೆಯ �ಾ=ಯ ವಶ_ಂದ ಅಪಹ:8 , ಮು/9ೆ�ೆ ಬ� 7Kಾ+ಣ)ೆP ಕ�ೆದು)ೊಂಡು ೋL , ಅ�0ಂದ ಆ!ೋ :-ಾದ�0

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

ಸಂಬಂDಕರ ಮYೆ9ೆ ಕ�ೆದು)ೊಂಡು ೋL , &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 366- ಎ ರನ�ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧವYೆ�ಸL5ಾ+Yೆ ಎಂಬುದನು� ಅdeೕಜYೆಯು ಸಂಶ�ಾ�ೕತ>ಾLರುಜು>ಾತುಪ/85ೆ*ೕ ?

¶68

3) TೕಲPಂಡಂ�ೆ 2018 ರ ಆಗ�\ �ಂಗ;ನ�0 ಅಲ05ೇ , )ೇವಲ 14 ವಷ. ವಯ8gನ Wಾ�ಾ -2 Yೊಂದ ^ಾಲ�ಯ TೕKೆ ನಂತರವh ಹಲ>ಾರು _ನಗಳ�0 KೈಂLಕ ಅ�ಾZWಾರ ಎಸL , ಆ)ೆ ಗd.i�ಾಗವjದ)ೆP )ಾರಣYಾL , &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 376(2)(i) ಸಹ>ಾಚಕ 376(3) ರ£ÀéAiÀÄ ಅಪ�ಾಧವYೆ�ಸL5ಾ+Yೆ ಎಂಬುದನು� ಅdeೕಜYೆಯು ಸಂಶ�ಾ�ೕತ>ಾLರುಜು>ಾತುಪ/85ೆ*ೕ ?

¶69

4) TೕಲPಂಡಂ�ೆ ಆ�ೋ�ಯು Wಾ�ಾ -2 ಅIಾ�ಪSYೊಂದ^ಾಲ�ಯTೕKೆ ಹಲ>ಾರು _ನಗಳ�0ಪ5ೇ ಪ5ೇ KೈಂLಕಅ�ಾZWಾರಎಸL , &ಾರತದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 376(2)( ಎQ ) ರನ�ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧವYೆ�ಸL5ಾ+Yೆ ಎಂಬುದನು� ಅdeೕಜYೆಯುಸಂಶ�ಾ�ೕತ>ಾLರುಜು>ಾತುಪ/85ೆ*ೕ ?

¶70

5) TೕಲPಂಡಂ�ೆ ಆ�ೋ�ಯು KೈಂLಕ ಅ�ಾZWಾರ ಎಸLದ JWಾರವನು� �ಾ:ಗೂ ೇಳ^ಾರ5ೆಂದು Wಾ�ಾ -2 ಅIಾ�ಪS Yೊಂದ ^ಾಲ�9ೆ ೆದ:8 , &ಾರತ ದಂಡ ಸಂ��ೆ ಕಲಂ 506 ರನ�ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧವYೆ�ಸL5ಾ+Yೆ ಎಂಬುದನು� ಅdeೕಜYೆಯು ಸಂಶ�ಾ�ೕತ>ಾL ರುಜು>ಾತು ಪ/85ೆ*ೕ ?

¶71

6) TೕಲPಂಡಂ�ೆ ಆ�ೋ�ಯು Wಾ�ಾ -2 ಅIಾ�ಪSYೊಂದ^ಾಲ�ಯTೕKೆ �ೕವ� ಸ�ರೂಪದ KೈಂLಕ ಅ�ಾZWಾರ ಎಸL , ಆ)ೆ ಗd.i�ಾಗಲು )ಾರಣYಾL , @PÉÆìÃ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 5( eÉ )(ii) ²PÁëºÀð PÀ®A 6 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ಅಪ�ಾಧವYೆ�ಸL5ಾ+Yೆ , ಎಂಬುದನು� ಅdeೕಜYೆಯು ಸಂಶ�ಾ�ೕತ>ಾL ರುಜು>ಾತುಪ/85ೆ*ೕ ?

¶72

7) TೕಲPಂಡಂ�ೆ ಆ�ೋ�ಯು Wಾ�ಾ -2 ಅIಾ�ಪSYೊಂದ^ಾಲ�ಯTೕKೆ ಹಲವj ^ಾ: �ೕವ� ಸ�ರೂಪದ KೈಂLಕ ಅ�ಾZWಾರ ಎಸL , @PÉÆìÃ

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

)ಾ*+ಯ ಕಲಂ 5( J¯ï ) ,-ಾಹ. ಕಲಂ 6 ರನ�ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧವYೆ�ಸL5ಾ+Yೆ , ಎಂಬುದನು� ಅdeೕಜYೆಯು ಸಂಶ�ಾ�ೕತ>ಾL ರುಜು>ಾತು ಪ/85ೆ*ೕ ?

¶77

8) TೕಲPಂಡಂ�ೆ ಆ�ೋ�ಯು Wಾ�ಾ -2 ಅIಾ�ಪS Yೊಂದ ^ಾಲ�ಯ ಸಂಬಂDಕYಾLದು+ , ಆ)ೆಯ TೕKೆ �ೕವ� ಸ�ರೂಪದ KೈಂLಕ ಅ�ಾZWಾರ ಎಸL , @PÉÆìÃ )ಾ*+ಯ ಕಲಂ 5( ಎQ ) ,-ಾಹ. ಕಲಂ 6 ರನ�ಯ ಅಪ�ಾಧವYೆ�ಸL5ಾ+Yೆ , ಎಂಬುದನು� ಅdeೕಜYೆಯು ಸಂಶ�ಾ�ೕತ>ಾL ರುಜು>ಾತುಪ/85ೆ*ೕ ?

¶78

9) ಏನುಆ5ೇಶ ?"

¶79

and on appreciation of the evidence, passed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence as noted above. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal.

¶80

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the case is largely based on the circumstantial evidence. Mother of the victim is the complainant. Evidence of the mother of the victim cannot be relied upon as she is a hearsay witness and has not witnessed any of the offence. That there are discrepancies in the version of the prosecution with regard to accused having taken the victim to her sister's house. PW1 and the mother of the accused used to quarrel by consuming alcohol and filing of the complaint against the

¶81

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

accused was in furtherance to the said animosity which has been not taken note of by the Court. There is no consistency with the deposition of the witnesses. The mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution fully. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶84

Learned HCGP on the other hand justifying the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, submitted that accused/appellant being the relative of the victim and he staying in the house of the victim is not in dispute. That the age of the victim has been proved in the manner known to law by producing birth certificate. The medical evidence in the nature of DNA report also indicate accused being the father of the fetus. That there is no inconsistency or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal.

¶85

Heard. Perused the records.

¶86

It is not in dispute that the accused being a relative

¶87

of the victim was staying in their house. It is also not in dispute that the victim girl was aged 14 years as on the date of the

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

incident. Ex.P25 is the date of birth certificate issued by the school on her admission. The said document has been marked by consent and there has been no objection.

¶92

PW8, PW9 and PW10 are the witnesses who have conducted medical tests. PW.11, Dr.Lohith, who had given treatment of abortion, has spoken about he having sent the fetus to the police for DNA examination to Mangalore. Nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the version of the said witness.

¶93

DNA report is at Ex.P37. The description of articles found in Ex.P37 and opinion read as follows:

¶94

MATERIALS-EXAMINED

¶95

Sl	DESCRIPTION ARTICLES	DNAS
No.		CODE NO.
1.	One sealed plastic container said to	P-3043
	contain product of conception of Supritha.

¶96

In continuation, two more articles were duly received and registered in the DNA Section, State Forensic Science Laboratories vide letter under reference 2 as DNA 21/2019 on 14.01.2019 concerned with Cr. No. 152/2018 of Mudigere Police Station u/s 366, 376(2)(f)(i)(n) IPC r/w 5(j)(ii)(l)(n), 6 of POCSO Act brought by CPC 212. Sri.S.Laxmana of Mudigere Police Station. The seals found on the articles were intact and tallied with sample seal and the description found on the articles tallied with the description invoice.

¶97

Description of the article is as follows:

¶98

2 One sealed vacutainer said to contain sample blood P- collected from female individual by name Supritha 3108

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

d/o Raju.

¶103

3 One sealed vacutainer said to contain sample blood P- collected from male individual by name Sathisha s/o 3109 Puttaswamy.

¶104

OPINION:

¶105

From the DNA profile results of item nos.1, 2 and 3 is found that:

¶106

The DNA profile results of product of conception of Supritha, sent in item No.1 consistent with having come from the offspring of Supritha d/o Raju and S. Sathisha s/o. Puttaswamy and is matching with the DNA profile results of sample blood sent in item nos.2 and 3 Therefore. Supritha d/o. Raju sample blood sent in item no.2, is included from being the biological mother and Sathisha s/o. Puttaswamy, sample blood sent in item no.3 is included from being the biological father of product of conception of Supritha, sent in item no. 1.

¶107

(SHANAZ FATHIMA M.) I/c Assistant Director DNA Section State Forensic Science Laboratory Bengaluru

¶108

From the above oral and documentary evidence,

¶109

the trial Court has come to the conclusion of prosecution proving the guilt of the accused warranting no interference at the hands of this Court. The appeal fails, same is dismissed .

¶110

13 -

¶111

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

However, learned counsel for the appellant brings to the notice of this Court to the order on sentence, in which the trial Court has imposed 20 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) read with Section 376(3) and Section 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with fine amount of Rs.40,000/-.

¶114

He submits the trial Court has erred in repeating the same for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 5(l) r/w Section 6, as well as Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 5(n) and Section 6 of POCSO Act with fine amount of Rs.40,000/- each. He submits that the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) and (f) are covered under same provision. There is no requirement of repeating the same. Similarly, section 5(j)(ii), 5(l) and 5(n) also stands covered under Section 6 of POCSO Act. There is no requirement of imposition of separate punishment and fine thereon.

¶115

Learned HCGP does not dispute this legal aspect of the matter. Accordingly, the sentence is modified to the effect that accused /appellant shall undergo imprisonment of 20 years

¶116

14 -

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:21394 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2021

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

for the offence of punishable under Section 376(2)(i),(n) and

¶120

(f) read with Section 376(3) of IPC and for Section 5(j)(ii), 5(l) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and shall pay the fine of Rs.40,000/-. Except above, the order of the trial Court

¶121

is confirmed.

¶122

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶123

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Mr.Sathisha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Sathisha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananjay Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaswamy Vs State by

Venkatesh @ Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Senior Intelligence Officer Vs Mwinshehe Shabani Selemani

State by Lokayukta Police Vs Muniyappa

Smt. Saroja,. H. v. Vs Sri. Rajashekhara. K. S