Dismissed¶71

The State by v. Shivakumar a.

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2026CRL.A/1626/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against acquittal; CRL.A 1626/2025; Karnataka HC DB 10-07-2026; s.378(1)(3) CrPC leave; Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act; Spl.C.C.No.306/2020 FTSC Bengaluru; Gangammagudi Police Station; proof of victim's age; Section 2(d) POCSO; school admission register Exs.P12/P13 DOB 04.10.2002; Section 94(2) JJ Act 2015; ossification test; delay in FIR 11.02.2020; discharge summary Ex.P15; refusal of consent Exs.P21-P23; no DNA examination; contradictions PWs.1-3; acquittal affirmed, no interference; delay condonation 512 days dismissed; amicus honourarium Rs.6,000.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed and acquittal of respondent No.1 upheld; I.A.No.1/2026 (delay condonation) dismissed as consequential. Amicus curiae granted honourarium of Rs.6,000/- payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee. ¶71

The State by Vs Shivakumar a. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 512 days in preferring the State appeal should be condoned (I.A.No.1/2026) and leave under s.378(1)(3) CrPC granted +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

The appeal is dismissed and, consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay is also dismissed

¶71

Ratio / Principle

In a case of this nature it is the primary duty of the prosecution to establish that the victim was a child by producing acceptable and convincing documents (such as date-of-birth certificate or ossification/medical age-determination test per s.94(2) JJ Act, 2015), and the investigation officer ought to have collected the date of birth when the defence seriously disputed age

¶53

Key takeaways

The trial judge's findings on proof of the victim's age (absence of date-of-birth certificate, matriculation/equivalent certificate or ossification test) cannot be held to be perverse or illegalratio¶58
The reasons assigned by the trial court for holding the charges not proved are in accordance with law; no interference is called for with the acquittalratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Mohammad Nawaz & G Basavaraja, JJ.), High Court of Karnataka, 10.07.2026, dismissed the State's Criminal Appeal No.1626 of 2025 under s.378(1)(3) CrPC challenging the judgment dated 25.11.2023 in Spl.C.C.No.306/2020 (Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, FTSC, Bengaluru) acquitting the respondent/accused of offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012. Trial court had acquitted on grounds that (i) the victim's minority was not proved - school records Exs.P12/P13 showing DOB 04.10.2002 were unsupported by a date-of-birth certificate or ossification/medical age-determination test as contemplated by s.94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015; (ii) there was inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the complaint (lodged 11.02.2020 after delivery on 10.02.2020); (iii) the victim did not disclose sexual assault to the doctor (Ex.P15 discharge summary); (iv) the mother refused consent for medical examination (Exs.P21-P23), so no DNA test established paternity; and (v) PWs.1-3's evidence contained contradictions. Holding that the prosecution bears the primary duty to establish the victim was a 'child' under s.2(d) POCSO with acceptable documents, the Court found the trial court's findings neither perverse nor illegal, declined interference, and dismissed the appeal together with I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of 512 days' delay. Amicus curiae awarded Rs.6,000/- honourarium.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1626 OF 2025 (A)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE STATE BY GANGAMMAGUDI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP (PH))

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

SHIVAKUMAR A. S/O. ARMUGAM, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O. RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE, SHIMADRI LAYOUT, SINGAPURA LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU PERMANENT ADDRESS: PARAMANDANDAL VILLAGE, CHANJAM TALUK, THIRUVANNAMALAI, TAMIL NADU-606 601.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

2. GANGAMMA

¶21

W/O. SUBHASH R., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. C/O. MURGESH BUILDING, 3^RD CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY-560 045.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. PRABHAKAR L. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH); SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) (3) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO: (A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.11.2023 IN SPL.C.C.SNO.306/2020 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II (POCSO), AT BENGALURU ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC., AND SECTION 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 (POCSO ACT); (B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.11.2023 IN SPL.C.NO.306/2020 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE/FTSC II (POCSO), AT BENGALURU ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC., AND SECTION 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 (POCSO ACT); (C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT – ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376 OF IPC., AND SECTION 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 (POCSO ACT).

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶32

The State is in appeal against the Judgment and order dated 25.11.2023, passed by the Court of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.306/2020, acquitting accused / respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶33

There is a delay of 512 days in preferring the

¶34

appeal. I.A.No.1/2026 is filed to condone the delay.

¶35

We have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 / accused and the learned amicus curiae for respondent No.2 / defacto complainant and perused the material on record, including the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that,

¶40

the victim girl is the minor daughter of the complainant. They are residents of a house in Murugesh Building, situated in 11^th Main, 3^rd Cross, Ragavendra Layout, K.G.Halli, Bengaluru City. The victim girl was doing part time work in the provision store of one Sri. Sashidara, PW.4, situated in Pipeline road, Abbigere. The accused was also working in the same provision store. He developed a close intimacy with the victim and started visiting her house when she was alone. During such time, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her repeatedly without her consent, as a result of which she became pregnant and gave birth to a female baby, on 10.02.2020.

¶41

The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Before the trial court, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P.32 to establish the charges levelled against the accused.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The Trial Court, vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the trial Court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the victim girl was a child as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012, as on the date of occurrence of the alleged incident. Secondly, it was held that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and no satisfactory, convincing and acceptable reasons are forthcoming as to why such an inordinate delay was caused. Further, the trial Court has also held that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, none other than the victim girl, her mother and her elder sister, is unnatural and in the said circumstances, the DNA report would play a vital role, but the prosecution has not chosen to produce the DNA report for the reasons best known.

¶45

Assailing the impugned Judgment, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the victim girl has delivered a child and she has supported the case of prosecution and her evidence is further supported by the

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

testimony of her mother and sister and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused. He contended that the prosecution has produced Exs.P12 and 13, copy of the school admission register extract (9^th std.)

¶49

and a letter written by the school authority to the police inspector-PW.8, wherein, the date of birth of the victim girl is mentioned as 04.10.2002 and therefore, it is established that she was a minor as on the date of commission of the offence.

¶50

In the documents, Exs.P12 and 13, relied upon by the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 04.10.2002. The prosecution relies on these two documents to prove that the victim girl was a minor and she was a child as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The trial Court has noticed that PW.8, the Police Inspector in his evidence has specifically stated that he has not made any efforts to collect the date of birth certificate of the victim girl.

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The victim girl examined as PW.1, in her evidence has stated that she was born in Sumathi Hospital and she studied up to 9^th standard. Both her mother as well as her sister corroborated the said evidence of PW.1. Hence, the Investigation Officer could have collected the date of birth of the victim girl, but the same was not collected. This assumes importance, since the defence has seriously disputed the age of the victim girl. In a case of this nature, it is the primary duty of the prosecution to establish that the victim was a child, by producing acceptable and convincing documents.

¶54

The learned trial judge by referring to Section

¶55

94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, observed that the prosecution is required to prove the age of the victim girl by producing the date of birth certificate issued by the school or the Matriculation or Equivalent certificate issued by the consent Examination Board and in the absence of which, the prosecution has to rely upon the ossification test

¶56

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

report or any other latest medical age determination test. In the instant case, the prosecution has not produced the above documents to prove the age of the victim girl. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge, in this regard, cannot be held to be perverse or illegal.

¶59

The victim girl gave birth to a female baby on 10.02.2020. The complaint was lodged after the delivery, i.e., on 11.02.2020. The police intimation dated 10.02.2020 is marked as Ex.P.29. The said document establishes that the Medical Officer of the hospital where the victim girl gave birth, intimated to the police about unmarried minor female with pregnancy admitted to their hospital. The discharge summary relating to the victim girl is marked as Ex.P15, which shows that she was admitted to the hospital on 10.02.2020. In Ex.P15, it is seen that the patient has denied any history of sexual intercourse and she was discharged against medical advice. The same is the evidence of the doctor-PW9. The learned trial judge has also considered the evidence of PW.8, the Police

¶60

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Inspector, wherein, he has stated that in Ex.P15, it is mentioned to the effect that there is no sexual assault on the victim girl. Hence the trial Court held that if really the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, she would have disclosed this fact to the doctor and the doctor ought to have mentioned the same in Ex.15. However, no satisfactory, convincing or acceptable reason is forthcoming as to why the victim girl did not disclose this fact to the doctor, which creates a strong doubt in the mind of the Court, which has remained unexplained.

¶63

The trial Court also taken into consideration

¶64

that the victim girl and her mother were residing in a same house under the common roof. Victim's mother was regularly observing her daughter's health condition. When her mother was constantly observing her health condition, it cannot be believed that she was not aware about her daughter's pregnancy till she delivered a child.

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:35080-DB CRL.A No. 1626 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Further, Exs.P21 to Ex.P23 are the notices

¶69

issued to the mother requesting to give consent for medical examination of the victim girl, but she refused to give consent. Hence, there is no DNA examination conducted to establish that the accused is the biological father of the child born to the victim gril. The trial Court has also found several contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, which goes to the root of the prosecution case. For all these reasons, the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him.

¶70

Having perused the entire material on record,

¶71

we find that the reasons assigned by the trial Court to hold that the charges against the accused are not proved, are in accordance with law and therefore, no interference is called for. Appeal is dismissed . Consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 is dismissed .

¶72