- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1316 OF 2020 (C) BETWEEN: JANARDHAN, S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 3RD CROSS, TOTADA ROAD, NEAR AMBUJAMMA PARK, SHANKARNAGARA, MANDYA CITY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LETHIF .B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION, MANDYA THROUGH THE S P P HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. RADHA W/O RAGHURAM AGED ABOUT 39YEARS, C/O POORNIMA, 3RD CROSS SHANKARA NAGAR, MANDAYA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. MANJUNATH .K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 23.09.2020 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.09.2020 PASSED BY THE I Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MANDYA IN SPL.C.NO.227/2018 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 376(2)(I), 506 OF IPC AND SEC.6, 10 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC., THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Accused No.1 in Spl.C.No.227/2018 on the file of the learned First Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya has preferred this appeal challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2020 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 376(2)(i) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 6 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'the POCSO Act') and sentencing him to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, undergo - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as per prosecution is that, accused No.1-appellant, who was residing in the ground floor of the house, wrongfully restrained PW1-the child aged 11 years, while she was playing in the first floor and committed aggravated sexual assault by inappropriately touching her breast and the private part, kissing her and also inserting his finger into her vagina. PW2 being the mother of the victim girl, lodged first information as per Ex.P2. Victim was subjected to medical examination, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded, where the victim narrated the acts committed by accused No.1. 3. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.2 the mother of accused No.1 abetted commission of the offence and harbored accused No.1. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against both the accused. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned accused Nos.1 and 2. They have - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16, got marked Exs.P1 to 18 and identified Mos.1 and 2, in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record. But have not led any evidence in support of their defence. However, they got marked portion of the statement of PW4 as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, proceeded to convict accused Nos.1 and 2 as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, they have preferred this appeal. However, during pendency of the appeal, accused No.2 died and the appeal preferred by her was dismissed as abated. 4. Heard Sri. Lethif.B., learned counsel for appellant- accused No.1 and Sri.Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 “Whether the appellant-accused No.1 has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is 'partly in the Affirmative' and pass the following: REASONS 6. It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused No.1 was the neighbor of the victim girl, and had committed aggravated sexual assault on the child aged 11 years, when she was playing near her house. It is stated that accused had taken the minor girl on his lap, inserted his finger in her vagina, squeezed her breast and kissed her. Admittedly, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded by the learned Magistrate as per Ex.P1. The victim is examined as PW1 and she has narrated the incident and the acts committed by the appellant. Even though it is suggested that there was an enmity between the two families, the same cannot be a ground to dispute the version of the victim girl, who withstood the cross-examination. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 7. PW2 is the mother of the victim girl, who lodged the first information after knowing about the incident. PW3 is the father of the victim girl. PW4 is the owner of the house, where the victim and the accused were residing. PW5 is the school Head Mistress who issued Ex.P5, according to which, the date of birth of the victim girl is 17.07.2007. Therefore, it is stated that the victim was aged 11 years as on the date of incident. PW6 accompanied the victim girl for medical examination. PW7 carried the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) examination. PW8 accompanied the accused to medical examination. PWs.9 and 10 are the witnesses to the spot mahazar Ex.P4. But they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.11 is the Doctor, who examined the accused and issued the medical certificates as per Exs.P7 to 9. PW12 is the Doctor, who examined the victim. She admits that FSL report is negative for commission of the offence. However, considering the allegations made against accused No.1, it cannot be expected that there will be any signs of committing aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl. 8. PW13 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation initially. PW14 is the Investigating Officer, who - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW15 is the Police Official, who registered the FIR as per Ex.P18. PW16 had recorded the statement of the victim girl initially. PW1 is the victim girl, who fully supported the case of prosecution and it is corroborated by PW2. Other witnesses are only circumstantial witnesses. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 is that there was an enmity between the two families and that led to filing of the false complaint. The same not been probabilized by any means. Simply because PW.1 admitted that there used to be quarrel between her mother and the accused, it cannot be the basis to conclude that PW2 has chosen to file a false complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 making serious allegations regarding commission of the offence under POCSO Act. It also cannot be believed that PW1, the child had deposed falsely only to support the version of PW2, even when no such incident had occurred. On the other hand motive suggested by the accused is a double edged weapon. It can also be held that in view of such quarrels the accused had committed the offence against the minor girl. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 10. From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, I am satisfied that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per Ex.P5, the age of the victim was 11 years, as her date of birth was 17.07.2007 and the incident had occurred on 22.01.2018. Considering the act committed by accused No.1 against the child, who was aged 11 years, I am of the opinion that accused No.1 has committed the offence of aggravated sexual assault punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and he is liable for conviction. 11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 341, 376(2)(i), 506 of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum imprisonment of 10 years for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, even though under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, accused No.1 is liable for minimum sentence of 10 years. It is to be noticed that clause 2(i) of Section 376 of IPC was omitted by Act 22 of 2018 with effect from 21.4.18 but the incident had occurred during January 2018. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 12. As per Section 10 of the POCSO Act, accused No.1 could be sentenced to undergo imprisonment of either description for a term, which shall not be less than 5 years but which may extend to 7 years only. It is stated that the accused was apprehended on 23.01.2018 and since then he is in judicial custody. Prima facie, he has already undergone 7 years of imprisonment for which, he is entitled for set off. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence imposed on accused No.1 could be modified. 13. Considering the nature of allegations and also taking into consideration the admitted fact that there was enmity between PWs.2 and accused Nos.1 and 2, I am of the opinion that accused No.1 could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and not under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC. Therefore, he is to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. To that extent the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be modified while confirming the judgment of conviction. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 14. Accordingly, I answer of the above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2018 passed in Spl.C.No.227/2018 on the file of the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 506 of IPC are confirmed. (iii) The Judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and for section 10 of POCSO Act is confirmed. The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with the default sentence of 1 year for the offence under section 10 of POCSO Act. (iv) The substantive sentence shall run concurrently. (v) The appellant is entitled for set off for the period, which he has already undergone sentence. The chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Mysuru is directed to release the appellant from custody, if he has already - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19768 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020 undergone imprisonment for a period of 7 years from the date of his arrest, subject to deposit of fine amount, if he is not required to be trained in custody in any other case. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11