- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIJAYAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) AND: 1. SRI. GOVARDHAN S/O KONDAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT CHEELANAHALLI VILLAGE MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA KARNATAKA – 562101. 2. SMT. LALITHA W/O LATE GOPI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT MELURU VILLAGE, JANGAMANAKOTTE HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R1; SMT. GEETHA MISRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.07.2024) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 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 OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.01.2024 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.675/2022 ON THE FILE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8 OF POCSO ACT AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.01.2024 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.675/2022 ON THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8 OF PCOSO ACT BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED RESPONDENT FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against acquittal of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act and also for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 323 and 506 IPC vide judgment dated 16.01.2024 in Special Case No.675/2022. 2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is mother of the victim P.W.2 and specific allegation against the accused is that on 13.04.2022 at about 3.00 p.m., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 accused took the victim girl from Nagarabhavi to a house situated at Dandadasakodigehally and threatened her to remove her clothes and touched her chest and caused harassment to her. As a result, he committed offence under Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act and offence under Sections 363, 323 and 506 IPC. 3. Based on the complaint of P.W.1, police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the accused. The accused was secured, he did not plead guilty. Hence, trial was conducted and prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P21. 4. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1, mother of the victim girl P.W.2. The Trial Court having considered evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses, taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 and 2 and both of them were not able to give clear evidence regarding incident, timings as well as causing of threat. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that it appears that P.W.2 was tutored by P.W.1, since there were number of cases - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 pending against the accused and P.W.1 and she has the habit of registering POCSO cases against other accused persons. P.W.1 also categorically admitted that there are number of cases pending between the accused and P.W.1. Hence, she has given evidence before the Court and Ex.P3-statement of victim girl itself gives room for doubting the case of prosecution, since P.W.2 also categorically says that she did not know the date of incident, vehicle number in which she was taken. Hence, benefit of doubt is given in favour of the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, present appeal is filed by the appellant-State. 5. Learned Additional SPP for the appellant-State would vehemently contend that Trial Court committed an error in appreciating evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborates the case of the prosecution and the Trial Court has not given clear finding in respect of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, though they have supported the case of the prosecution. She would vehemently contend that age of P.W.1 is proved by the marks list produced as Ex.P17 which discloses the date of birth of the victim girl as 13.06.2006. She would further contend that statement of P.W.2 has not been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 discredited, who categorically states as to how an incident has taken place, even though other witnesses are not important witnesses and P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically depose as to how an incident has occurred, but instead Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not acceptable. She also brought to notice of this Court evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and contend that there is corroboration with regard to the incident is concerned. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 6. The Amicus Curie, who appears on behalf of respondent No.1/accused would contend that Trial Court while considering the material on record rightly comes to the conclusion that P.W.1 might have tutored P.W.2 and rightly observed that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, she has admitted that there are number of cases pending between herself and accused. She also would contend that accused is not husband of P.W.1 and P.W.1 had indulged in marrying many persons and was also having the habit of lodging POCSO complaint against other accused persons and admitted that earlier in 2017 case was registered and one more case was registered in 2019 against respondent No.1 and two cases are - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 registered against respondent No.1. Having considered material on record, she would contend that Trial Court has not committed any error. She would further contend that even though victim was not subjected to sexual harassment, she has refused to subject herself for medical examination. Hence, it does not require any interference. 7. In reply to the argument of learned Amicus Curie appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/accused, learned Additional SPP for the appellant-State would contend that question of subjecting the victim for medical examination does not arise, since the victim was not subjected to penetration or sexual act and the only allegation against the accused is that he had touched chest of the victim. 8. Having heard learned Additional SPP for the appellant-State as well as learned Amicus Curie for respondent No.1 and also considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court as well as the grounds urged in the appeal and also submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in not accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the incident is concerned and any error is committed in discrediting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and it requires interference of this Court? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 9. Having heard learned Additional SPP for the appellant-State and learned Amicus Curie for respondent No.1- accused and also considering the charges leveled against him, specific charges against the accused is that on 13.04.2022 at about 3.00 p.m., he took the victim girl from Nagarabhavi to a house situated at Dandadasakodigehally and threatened her to remove her clothes and touched her chest and subjected her for sexual harassment. Learned Additional SPP for the appellant-State would vehemently contend that very allegation made in the complaint would attract Sections 363, 323 and 506 IPC, since he had slapped her and intimidated the victim girl and with regard to sexual act, it attracts Sections 5 and 8 of POCSO Act, since he misbehaved and caused sexual harassment. Having considered the grounds urged in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 appeal and also considering the fact that P.W.1 is mother of the victim and she has categorically deposed that her husband deserted 9 years back and subsequently, he passed away. But, the victim girl was born in the wedlock for the first husband, but P.W.1 has married the accused and all were residing together and on the date of incident, she had been to Bagepalli to attend the Court and accused had taken her to a farm house and caused threat and subjected her for sexual harassment. 10. P.W.2 is the victim girl, who also deposed in line of evidence of P.W.1. The Trial Court also taken note of evidence that P.W.2 alone is the eye witness and competent witness to the case, though she is a minor. The Trial Court also evaluated the material on record and also taken care that while appreciating the evidence of child witness, the Court must be careful and taken note of admissions given by both P.Ws.1 and 2. Admittedly, there were disputes between the accused and P.W.1 and the same is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, who categorically deposed that there are number of cases pending between her and accused. It is also important to note that she admits that she gave complaint against Padma and others also. P.W.1 also admits that one more complaint was given against - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 Santhosh and Nikhil and POCSO case is registered against them in 2017. She has also lodged complaint against the accused in 2019. When such complaint was given in 2019 also, what made P.W.2 to accompany accused, no proper explanation on the part of the prosecution and P.W.1 categorically admits that accused had already left her and case was pending against him, since she had lodged the complaint and she was also not able to give specific date of the incident, mobile number of the accused and also vehicle number. Though the evidence of P.W.2-victim girl is in line of evidence of P.W.1, she categorically admits registration of case against Santhosh and Nikhil, who are also relatives of accused in the year 2017 and she also categorically admits that she cannot specify the date on which the complaint was given in 2017 and earlier complaint given against the accused in 2019. She was also unable to give the details of vehicle number, what is the distance between Nagarbhavi and farm house and so also does not know the date of incident and when mahazar was drawn. But, only says that at the time of drawing mahazar, her mother and police were there and does not know the timings of mahazar and fails to describe the place where mahazar was conducted and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 categorically says that police have not recorded her statement, but she has signed two mahazars. 11. Having considered these answers elicited from P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that there were earlier cases between accused and P.W.1 and one more case was registered against this appellant in 2019 and claim that both of them were living together. But, the fact that case was registered against this accused is not in dispute. It is very difficult to believe the case of prosecution and when already case was registered against this accused in 2019, the victim has accompanied the accused in the motorcycle on the date of incident in the year 2022, though she had the knowledge of her mother lodging complaint against him and cases are pending before the Court. When such answers are elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 and 2, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in the same line, but it is a clear that P.W.1 has tutored P.W.2, since P.W.1 is having animosity against the accused and both P.Ws.1 and 2 are not able to give the date of incident and on what date mahazar was conducted and even victim says that her statement was not recorded by the police. When such answer is elicited from the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9054 CRL.A No. 556 of 2024 mouth of P.W.1, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and acquitting him for the offence. Hence, I answer point No.(i) as ‘negative’. Point No.(ii) 12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Registry is directed to pay the fee of Rs.5,000/- to the Amicus Curie, who appeared on behalf of respondent No.1-accused for her service rendered in the case. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49