- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1517 OF 2016 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 571 511. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) AND: SHAHID SON OF AVAD AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND, C/O ATHAULLA (RENT HOUSE), 1ST CROSS MAGADI ROAD, IJOOR RAMANAGARA TOWN - 571 511. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 26.02.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., RAMANAGARA IN SPL.C.NO.4/2015 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8 OF POCSO ACT. Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 26.02.2016 by the I Additional District and Sessions Court, at Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Sessions Judge’) in Special Case No.04/2015, wherein the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. The abridged facts that led to the trial of the appellant-accused are as follows: On 05.12.2014 at about 8:30 a.m., near Anekattu on the road situated between Kenjigarahalli-Kethohalli, Ramanagara Taluk, the respondent/accused forcibly dragged the victim- PW.1 and attempted to disrobe her while she was on her way to Mayaganahalli School. However, after hearing her hue and cry, PW.3-Rajanna came to the spot and rescued her. Accordingly, she lodged a complaint before Ramanagara Rural - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 Police on the same day as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, the said Police registered the case against the accused in Crime No.414/2014 dated 05.12.2014 as per Ex.P4. Thereafter, the PSI of said appellant-Police investigated the case and laid the chargesheet against the accused before the Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 3. On taking cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the accused, the learned Special Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The same was read over verbatim to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution collectively examined 5 witnesses before the Sessions Court as PW.1 to PW.5 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. 5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Special Judge read over the incriminating evidence of the material witnesses to the accused as stipulated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 The defence of the accused is one of total denial and that of false implication. However, the accused neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents on his behalf. 6. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Special Judge, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged under this appeal by the State. 7. I have heard the learned HCGP Sri. Rahul Rai K., for the appellant-State and the learned counsel Sri. Manjunath B.R., for the respondent/accused. 8. I have given my circumspect consideration both on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also the entire evidence available on record. 9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has primarily relied on the evidence of PW.1-victim and the evidence of PW.6 who visited to the spot soon after the incident. PW.1-victim stated in her evidence that, on the date - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 of incident at about 8:30 a.m. while she was on her way to school the accused-a stranger, held her hand and dragged her towards a fence. When she shouted the accused tried to close her mouth with cloth. When PW.3 reached the spot, accused fled. Later, she lodged the complaint before the appellant- Police. However, in the cross-examination she categorically admitted that, at the spot of incident there were movement of people and vehicles. Further, on both sides are agricultural lands. According to her, PW.2-Lakshmamma her older aunt and PW.3-Rajanna were working on their land at the time of incident, upon hearing her hue and cry, they reached the spot. Further, she also stated that the accused stuffed cloth in her mouth to prevent her from crying for help. However, on perusal of the evidence of PW.2-the mother of the victim she has stated that she reached the spot after the incident and on enquiry, she learnt that the accused dragged PW.1. PW.3 though supported the case of prosecution, he has stated that on the date of incident the was victim was spotted crying and on enquiring her he learnt that the accused dragged her to a nearby bush. When she cried for help the accused fled the spot. In the cross-examination of PW.3, he has admitted that nobody - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 was present at the time of incident. Further, he also admitted that there were people and vehicles moving about on the said road. PW.4-the father of PW.1 also stated that, he learnt about the incident through PW.1. On careful perusal of evidence of these witnesses and on perusal of Ex.P1-complaint it is stated that the victim was on her way to the school on the date of incident, however, in her evidence before the Court she has stated that, on that day, she was on her way to attend special classes at School at about 09:00 a.m. According to her, the accused dragged her for about half a meter. Further, the accused stuffed a piece of cloth in her mouth to prevent her from making any hue and cry. It is also stated in the evidence that the accused was a stranger and was walking by the road with a bundle of clothes. The defence of the accused was that, he was a clothes’ vendor, the mother of victim and PW.3 were negotiating with him to purchase clothes and the victim was scattering the clothes, though he warned her not to do it, being enraged with the accused she lodged a false complaint against him. To substantiate this defence, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that, the Police failed to collect the cloth piece stuffed in the victim’s mouth by the accused. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 Further, the Police also failed to seize the clothes bundle of the accused. There were movements of the vehicles and public in the alleged spot, it is impossible to drag the victim by the accused in the said place. Even otherwise, the Doctor who examined the victim has categorically stated that there is no such injuries found on her person neither scratches nor any other bodily injuries. The prosecution also failed to place any such credible documents to prove the age of the victim except Ex.P5. On careful perusal of Ex.P5-age document of the victim, the same is handwritten document by the Head Master and no school register or the birth certificate of the victim was placed by the prosecution to prove that she was minor at the time of incident. In such circumstances, The Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.200109/2014 dated 05.11.2024 held regarding determination of the age of the victim at paragraphs No.40 and 41 as under: “40. As regards the age of the victim, it is the settled position of law that the same test of juvenility vis–a–vis an accused who seeks benefit of being a juvenile would be sufficient test to determine age of the victim. The Apex Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, [(2013) 7 SCC 263] at para 23 has observed as follows: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 “23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even of a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference insofar as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VW, PW 6. The manner of determining age conclusively has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained by adopting the first available basis out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the child concerned is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3) envisages consideration of the date of birth entered in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration for - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the child concerned, on the basis of medical opinion.” 41. Under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules, the documents that could be relied for the determination of the age are as follows: “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.— Xxx (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining— (a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;” 10. On perusal of the above judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, it is relatively clear that as per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, in order to prove the age - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 of the child or juvenile, the procedure to be followed and the documents to be relied by the prosecution are the matriculation or equivalent certificates if available; and in the absence the birth certificate from the school (other than a pay school) first attended; and in the absence the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat. Hence, considering the above aspect, I am of the considered view that, the prosecution also failed to prove that the victim was a minor as on the date of incident. 11. This being an appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.R.Sundara And Others Vs. State Of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 summarized the principles to exercise the power by the Appellate Court to interfere in the order of the Sessions Court in paragraph No.9 as under: “9. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.” 12. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallappa And Others v. State Of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 while summarizing the principles in dealing with the appeal against acquittal in paragraph No.42 held as under: “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play 9 AIR 1961 SC 715 while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 13. Hence, on careful perusal of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the evidence placed by the prosecution in the instant case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to place cogent evidence to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5694 CRL.A No. 1517 of 2016 14. Against this backdrop, I decline to interfere in the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. . SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25