- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290 CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200167 OF 2017 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2017 IN CRL.A.NO.200167/2017: BETWEEN PARAMANNA S/O BASAWARAJ SILINGERI AGED ABOUT: 22 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O HORATUR VILLAGE, SHAHAPUR TALUKA, DIST.YADGIRI. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S.B. SANGOLAGI, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH WADAGERA POLICE STATION, TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADGIRI. REPRESENTED BY ADDL.SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT /ACCUSED PRAYING THAT THIS HON_BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED:01.04.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN SPL.CASE.(POCSO) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290 CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017 NO.1/2016 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 354,376(D), 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC. IN CRL.A.NO.808/2017: BETWEEN MALAPPA S/O BHIMANNA VAGGAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE TALUKA SHAHAPUR DISTRICT:YADGIRI ...APPELLANT (BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH WADAGERA POLICE STATION YADGIRI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP ) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 01.04.2017 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI IN SPL.C(P.O.C.S.O.)NO.1/2016 - AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.2 OF THE CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354,376-D AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.04.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290 CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) These two appeals have been filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01.04.2017 in Special Case (POCSO) No.1/2016 pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri. 2. The ranks of the parties will be considered henceforth as that of Trial Court for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 12.09.2015 at about 2.00 P.M. C.W.1/victim had gone to attend nature call in the open field situated near her house. The accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the residents of the same village stated to have kidnapped her and took her to a dilapidated shed which belongs to Mr.Ayyappa Sahukar. 4. It is further stated that the accused No.1 stated to have committed sexual assault on her and thereafter he informed accused No.2 to have sexual intercourse with the victim. When the accused No.2 went to have sexual intercourse with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290 CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017 victim, she resisted and pushed accused No.2 by biting his right hand and thereafter she cried for help. 5. On hearing the said hue and cry, C.W.12 who is the son of her uncle went to the said place. After seeing him, accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the place. The victim and C.W.12 after discussing the matter with the family members lodged a complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2. Based on the said complaint, the respondent Police have registered a case against accused Nos.1 and 2. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.17 and got marked 20 documents as EX-P.1 to P.20 and also identified 4 material objects MO.1 to MO.4. 7. Heard Sri.S.B.Sangolagi, learned counsel for appellant / accused No.1 in Crl.A No.200167/2017, Sri. and Sri.Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for appellant / accused No.2 in Crl.A No.808/2017 and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State in both cases. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290 CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is perverse, illegal and against the evidence on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. It is further submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix appears to be tainted and unbelievable for the reason that, even though she stated in her evidence that, accused No.1 had committed sexual intercourse on her and an attempt was made by accused No.2, however, she is stated to have bit the right hand of the accused No.2. However, P.W.7- Doctor, who examined both accused Nos.1 and 2 did not notice such biting marks on the right hand of accused No.2. Further, the Doctor, who conducted examination of the victim, has been examined as P.W.14. According to P.W.14, the victim had not been subjected to recent sexual intercourse. Such being the fact, the evidence of P.W.1, cannot be construed as ‘sterling witness’. However, the Trial Court ignored in considering the said aspect and relied on the evidence of P.W.1 even without corroboration of independent witness which appears to be erroneous. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290 CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017 10. When the evidence of P.W.1 who is the victim of the case, is not believable conviction in respect of offence under Section 376-D of IPC cannot be sustained. 11. As regards, Section 354 of IPC is concerned, the said ingredients would be attracted only when the modesty of the women is outraged. On the given set of facts and also evidence on record would indicate that none of the independent witness have stated about the outraging modesty of the victim. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction for the offence under Section 354 of IPC also cannot be sustained.. 12. As regards Section 506 of IPC is concerned, again the entire case is depending on the evidence of related witnesses. None of the independent witnesses have spoken about criminal intimidation. In the absence of evidence regarding criminal intimidation, recording the conviction for the said offence is erroneous and not proper. 13. On over all reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and also other evidence relating to medical examination and also radiological tests etc., it can be inferred that the age of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290 CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017 victim was between 16 to 18 years as on the date of alleged incident and she was married. Even assuming that she had been subjected to sexual assault, no external injuries were found during the examination. Further, there are some inconsistencies in respect of injury caused to the accused No.2 and also to the victim. Having considered the said inconsistencies, it is appropriate to opine that the Trial Court has committed error in recording the conviction in respect of the offences stated supra. 14. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01.04.2017 passed in Special Case (POCSO) No.1/2016 by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, is set aside. iii) The appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290 CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017 Section 354, 376(D), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. iv) Bail bonds executed if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1