- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2015 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE-571511. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.) AND: BEERESHA S/O CHIKKAVENKATAIAH 31 YEARS, R/O RAJIVAGANDHIPURA, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571511 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D N MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT.) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.13/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT AT RAMANAGARA THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 354 OF IPC AND SEC. 8 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22nd December, 2014 passed in Spl.C.C. No.13 of 2014 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (for short “the trial Court”.) 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to this appeal are that Ramanagara Rural Police laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of POCSO Act. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05th November, 2013 around 3.30 pm, at Rajeevgandhipura within the limits of Ramanagara Rural Police Station, CW2-victim, aged five and a half years who was playing, was taken by the accused under the guise of playing with her. Further, he took her to the first floor of the house of CW10 with an intention to sexually harass her, made her to remove clothes, kissed her cheeks, fondled over the chest and then attempted to do sexual - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 activity with her, thereby committed an offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354 of IPC. 5. After hearing on charges, charges were framed, same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, ten witnesses are examined as PWs1 to 10, 11 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 7. Having heard on both sides, the trial court acquitted the accused. Assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 8. Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is illegal and contrary to law and facts. He would submit that PW1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 is the complainant and the mother of the victim child. She has clearly stated regarding the incident, as narrated to her. She has also explained regarding the delay in lodging the complaint. PW2-victim child, has also deposed as to the act committed by the accused. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 is also corroborated with the evidence of PW3. The trial Court has not appreciated the facts in accordance with law. On these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent remain absent. Argument on behalf of the respondent is taken as nil. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the State has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal? 2) What order? Regarding Point No.1: 11. I have examined the materials placed before the Court. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer to the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 12. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 13. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” 14. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 15. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 16. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 17. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PWs1 to 10 and marked 11 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P11. 18. CW1-Sheela is the complainant. She has deposed regarding the complaint filed by her as per Exhibit P1. 19. CW2-victim examined as PW2, has deposed as to the incident. 20. PW3-Balu, who is an eye-witness, has deposed as to the incident. 21. PW4-Savita and PW5-Hanumantha, have not supported the case of the prosecution. 22. PW6-Jawaregowda, Public Development Officer, has deposed in his evidence as to issuance of Exhibit P5-Demand Register Extract. 23. PW7-Mahalinga, in-charge Headmaster has deposed as to issuance of Exhibits P6 and P7. 24. PW8-Dr. Kalpana, has deposed as to examination of victim and issuance of Exhibit P8. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 25. PW9-Vasanth Kumar, has deposed as to the investigation conducted by him. 26. PW10-Dr. Shashidhara, has deposed in his evidence as to issuance of Exhibit P11. 27. The incident took place on 05th November 2013 in the morning. Complaint came to be filed on 12th November 2013 at 10:00 am. The First Information Report reached the Court on 12th November 2013 at 4:15 pm. PW1-Sheela, has lodged the complaint and is none other than the mother of the victim, has not deposed anything as to the delay of one week in filing the complaint. During the course of cross examination, PW2-victim has clearly stated that her mother has tutored her to depose against the accused. 28. The trial Court, in the course of judgment at page 19, has observed as under: "…it is clear that accused is a blind person who is studying in blind school. Here what is to be looked into is surprisingly the medical officer who conducted medical examination has nowhere recorded he is blind and further only recorded pursuant to requisition that he is capable of sexual activity. Sofar as residential premises - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 is concerned, Javaregowda is not in a position to state anything. Cross of PW2 goes to the very root of the case. Wherein child clearly stated that mother has tutored her to talk like this. She doesn’t at least the name of her school and she admitted that on that day also she has gone to school." 29. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. I do not find any error/illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also keeping in mind the above judgments, I answer Point No.1 in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 30. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal dismissed; ii) Judgment of acquittal passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in Spl. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40676 CRL.A No. 782 of 2015 CC No.13 of 2014 dated 22nd December, 2014, is confirmed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 113