- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17615-DB CRL.A No. 1209 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1209 OF 2020 (A) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION, PERIYAPATNA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) AND: 1. KIRAN KUMAR S/O RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O YAMAGUMBHA VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, NATIVE PLACE: KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571105 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17615-DB CRL.A No. 1209 of 2020 2. KUMARA S/O. MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS KOTTEGARA VILLAGE HUNASURU TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.C. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, ADVOCATE AUTHORIZED BY HCLSC FOR R2) THIS CRL.A. 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 26.06.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPL. JUDGE, MYSURU IN S.C.NO.305/2015, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 344, 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 5(l) READ WITH SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR and HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17615-DB CRL.A No. 1209 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) Heard Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the appellant/State, Sri H.C.Shankar, Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Shilpa S.Gogi, learned advocate authorized by HCLSC for respondent No.2 at the time of admission. 2. This appeal is against acquittal judgment dated 26.06.2019 passed by VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.305/2015. The accused faced trial for the offence under Sections 366, 344, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and got acquitted of all these offences. 3. The prosecution case is that at about 07.30pm on 21.12.2014, PW2 and the accused eloped from Hunsur. The father made a missing complaint to the police. Both of them were traced - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17615-DB CRL.A No. 1209 of 2020 on 12.02.2015. Assessing the evidence of 7 witnesses and the exhibited documents, the trial court recorded its reasons that the testimony of PW2 is not trust worthy inasmuch as in the first instance she stated that she herself called the accused over phone and then both of them left Hunsur. But in the cross examination she stated that the accused took her. She was a college going girl at that time and both of them were known to each other. She was aware of the consequences of her acts. Both PW2 and the accused stayed together for about 2 months. So far as age is concerned, the prosecution did not produce any document. PW1 the father stated in his cross examination that he was not aware of the correct date of birth of his daughter as he was illiterate. In this view, the evidence with regard to age of the girl was not produced before the court. Even there was no support from the medical evidence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17615-DB CRL.A No. 1209 of 2020 4. For the above reasons the trial court was of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case. We do not find a good ground to admit this appeal. The appeal is not worth admission. Hence it is dismissed. Sd/- (SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16