- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2019 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI. K. KRISHNA S/O LATE KUNHIRAMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, COOLIE BY PROFESSION, RESIDING AT LINE HOUSE, KARUMBAIAH, BILIGERI VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. S. KARTHIK KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE CPI, SOMWARPET CIRCLE, KODAGU DISTRICT. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2018, PASSED IN SPL.C NO.146/2017 BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376(2)(i)(n) OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FROM THE CRIME AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE SET AT LIBERTY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal is by the appellant/accused No.1 against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2018 passed in Special Case No.146/2017 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') by which the trial Court convicted appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as under: (a) Rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, to undergo imprisonment for 3 years for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC. (b) Imprisonment of 7 years and to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to undergo imprisonment for 1 year for the offence p/u/Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. (c) Imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to undergo imprisonment for 2 years for the offence p/u/Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. (d) All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.2- Smt. Shivamma was married to one Mahadeva. They had two daughters from the said marriage. Said Mahadeva had deserted her and the daughters. Accused No.2 was having illicit relationship with the appellant/accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with said daughters of accused No.2 were residing in the line house of an estate belonging to one Sri. Karumbaiah. Accused Nos.1 and 2 used to consume alcohol and sleep in the kitchen. While, two daughters of accused No.2 were sleeping in a room of the house. About eight months prior to the date of the complaint, accused No.1 during the night hours had forced sexual intercourse multiple time with the victim/second daughter of accused No.2. That victim girl as a consequence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 became pregnant. That the victim girl was studying in 10th Standard at the relevant time. That accused No.2 despite having knowledge of the same did not file any complaint and absconded along with accused No.1. That with the intervention of PW.6-Anganvadi worker, PW.18-PSI Somwarpet Police Station, went to Madikeri Hospital along with PW.15-Women Head Constable-Smt.Bharathi, and recorded statement of victim girl on 18.02.2016 in the presence of one Shilpa, member of Annapoorna Ujwala Samste and thereafter registered a case in Crime No.87/2016, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. Victim gave birth to girl child on 16.03.2016. Accused No.1 and accused No.2 were arrested on 09.08.2017. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C on 10.08.2017. DNA report was obtained on 02.01.2018. Thus after the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 on 07.09.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 201, 376 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act. Charges were - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 framed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and (n), 114, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted. 4. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.18 and got marked 21 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. Accused Nos.1 and 2 denied the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution against them in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. On appreciation of the evidence, trial court acquitted the accused No.2 while convicted the appellant/accused No.1 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine as noted above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused No.1 is before this Court. 6. Heard both side. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 taking this Court through the records submitted that the appellant/ accused No.1 has been falsely implicated in the case. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 That there has been an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. That even after registration of the first information report there is unexplained delay in filing the charge sheet. He contended that the age of the victim girl has not been sufficiently established. That the only proof that has been produced by the prosecution with regard to the age of the victim girl is the certificate of age declaration and admission given by PW8- Sri.Dharmappa D.P., as per Ex-P6. That the trial Court has not appreciated the acceptability and admissibility of such a document establishing proof of age of the victim. Thus he submits that these lacunas in the case of the prosecution creates doubt warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Learned SPP-II justifying the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court submitted that there has been no dispute at all by the appellant/accused No.1 with regard to the age of the victim girl. He submits that the accused Nos.1 and 2 sped away once the incident came to light and were arrested in Sakaleshpur. That the conduct of appellant /accused No.1 and accused No.2-the mother of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 victim girl suggests that they were guilty of the offences alleged. That the DNA profile obtained by the prosecution categorically establishes the fact of appellant/accused No.1 being the biological father of the the child which was born to the victim girl, which factor has not been disputed. He submits that in terms of the provisions of Section 29 of the POCSO, the presumption drawn by the trial Court cannot be found fault with, as no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Appellant/accused No.1. Thus he submits that no interference is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard both side and perused the records. 10. The point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the matter the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under section Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 114, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012?" Appreciation of evidence and analysis: 11. Undisputed facts of the matter are that Smt.Shivamma- the accused No.2 was earlier married to one - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 Mahadeva and PW.1-victim girl and her elder sister PW.2 are the two daughters born to them. That the said Mahadeva had deserted the family. That appellant/accused No.1, accused No. 2 and the said daughter were residing in the line house of an estate owned by PW.5-Karambaiah. 12. According to the prosecution, the incident came to light upon PW.6- Smt. Revathi, an Anganvadi worker of Biligiri Village, who is also an acquaintance of the family of victim girl, noticed the stomach of victim girl being heavy when she had come to fetch water from the public tap on 01.02.2016. PW.6 had taken the victim girl to the Biligiri Primary Health Centre where on 02.02.2016 on the initial check-up, it was confirmed that she was pregnant. Thereupon, victim girl disclosed to PW.6 that the appellant/ accused No.1 had repeated sexual intercourse with her during the night hours as such she had become pregnant. 13. PW.7- Smt. Lavanya V.V., a Junior Health Assistant of Biligiri Primary Health Centre has deposed that on 02.02.2016 one Bhavani CW5 and PW6- Revathi had brought the victim girl to her suspecting about the change in her - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 body/stomach. That upon she conducting the urine test found that victim girl was pregnant. That she informed the said matter to her superior officer Dr. Chetan. Upon conducting the scan it was ascertained that the victim girl was pregnant by 8 months. The said witness has further deposed that she along with Bhavani took the victim girl to the house of PW.5- Karumbaiah and informed him about the victim girl being pregnant of 8 months and that the victim girl had disclosed to PW.5-Karumbaiah about appellant/ accused No.1 having repeated sexual intercourse with her. That both victim girl and her sister were taken to Ujjwala Samste of Madikeri and on 16.03.2016 victim girl gave birth to a female baby. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to discredit the evidence of these two witnesses. 14. PW.5-B.Karumbaiah in whose estate appellant/accused No.1, accused No.2 and daughters of accused No.2 namely PWs.1 and 2 were residing has deposed confirming the fact of said persons staying in the line house of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 his estate and also about he having been informed by PW.6- Revathi, CW.5-Smt. Bhavani and PW.7-Lavanya about PW.1 being tested and found pregnant of 7-8 months and PW1 disclosing the act of appellant/accused No.1. 15. That upon the intimation sent by the President of Child Welfare Committee, Madikeri, Kodagu District on 16.02.2016, as per Ex.P20, PW.18 who was the then Police Sub Inspector of Somwarpet Police Station went to Madikeri Government Hospital along with PW.15-Bharathi and recorded the statement of victim girl in the presence of one Shilpa member of Annapoorna Ujwala Samste. The complaint/statement given by the victim is as per Ex.P1, which reads as under: "ºÉýPÉ: PÀÄ. ¤vÁå JA, vÀAzÉ ªÀĺÁzÉêÀ ¥ÁæAiÀÄ 15 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À PÀgÀÄA§AiÀÄågÀªÀgÀ ¯ÉÊ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ©½UÉÃj UÁæªÀÄ, ¸ÉÆêÀĪÁgÀ¥ÉÃmÉ. £Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è vÁ¬Ä ²ªÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ £ÉÃvÁæªÀw ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄ®vÀAzÉ PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀÅzÁVzÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÁæAiÀÄ 15 ªÀµÀðªÁVzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ UËqÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ QgÀUÀAzÀÄj£À ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è 10 £Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è NzÀÄwÛzÀÄÝÝ. FUÉÎ 4 wAUÀ½¤AzÀ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀĺÁzÉêÀgÀªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ 4£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è EzÁÝUÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ªÉÄʸÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ²ªÀªÀÄä QgÀUÀAzÀÆj£À PÀȵÀÚ JA§ªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ fêÀ£À £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ. CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÁÝUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¦æÃw¬ÄAzÀ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ DUÁUÉÎ wAr, §¼É, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 ºÀtÄÚUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ EgÀ®Ä EµÀÖªÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. PÀȵÀÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ²ªÀªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 8 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ MAzÀÄ ¢£À gÁwæ £Á£ÀÄ CPÀÌ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÁ°£À°è ªÀÄ®VzÉݪÀÅ. vÁ¬Ä «¥ÀjÃvÀ PÀÄrzÀÄ PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ CqÀÄUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ®VzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß §½ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ªÀÄ®VPÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁQPÉÆArzÀÝ ZÀÆrzÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©aÑ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¨ÉvÀÛ¯É ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉvÀÛ¯ÁV £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¨É¼É¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ QgÀÄZÁqÀ°®è ºÁUÀÆ ºÉzÀjPÉ DUÀ°®è. £À£Àß CPÀÌ £ÉÃvÁæªÀw C¯Éèà ªÀÄ®VzÀÄÝ F «ZÁgÀ CªÀ½UÉ UÉÆvÁÛVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è PÀȵÀÚ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ gÁwæ ªÉÃ¼É EzÉà jÃw DUÁUÉÎ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ wAUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄmÁÖUÀzÉ EzÁÝUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ «ZÁgÀ w½¹ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹zÉ£ÀÄ. DzÀgÉà CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À CAUÀ£ÀªÁrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ gÉêÀwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©½Vj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀPÀÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆvÀæ ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁr¹ £À£ÀUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁV¢ÝAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁjUÀÆ w½¸À°®è. £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ £À¸ïðgÀªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä vÉÆÃlzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ PÀgÀÄA§AiÀÄå ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀgÀÄA§AiÀÄå, ¨sÀªÁ¤ ©½UÉÃj £À¸ïð £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀiÁzÁ¥ÀÄgÀ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV vÁ¬Ä PÁqïð ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. ªÉÆ£Éß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ E§âgÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¨Á®QAiÀÄgÀ ¨Á®¨sÀªÀ£ÀPÉÌ ©qÀÄvÉÛªÉAzÀÄ w½¹ £À£ÀߣÀÄß CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¨Á®QAiÀÄgÀ ¨Á®¨sÀªÀ£ÀPÉÌ ©nÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁzÀ «ZÁgÀ w½zÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ²ªÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ PÀȵÀÚ ¸ÉÆêÀĪÁgÀ ¸ÀAvÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛªÉAzÀÄ w½¹ ºÉÆÃzÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¥Á¸ÀÄì ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F ¢£À £À£ÀߣÀÄß Gdé® ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ²¯ÁàgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄqÀPÉÃjAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀPÁj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ZÉPÀ¥ïUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ jÃw vÀ¥ÉàAzÀÄ FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ C¤¸ÀÄwÛzÉ. CªÀjUÉ ²PÉë DUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄrPÉÃj ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ DªÀgÀt ²¯ÁàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ºÉýPÉ". 16. On 10.08.2017 statement of victim girl was recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C which is marked as Ex.P3. Trial Court has recorded the evidence of victim girl as PW.1. She has reiterated her version as found in her - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 complaint/statement as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. She has deposed that her date of birth is 22.12.2000. 17. PW.2 is the elder sister of the victim Girl. She has reiterated the case of PW1. 18. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the deposition of PW.1, PW.2 and PW5. 19. PW.10- Dr.Somashekar H.K, Gynaecologist, Madikeri Govt. Hospital has deposed that on 15.03.2016 victim girl aged 15 years was admitted to the hospital and he treated her. That on examination he informed that she was pregnant of 8 and 1/2 months and her due date for delivery as per the scanning report was 07.04.2016. That she delivered female child in the hospital on 16.03.2016 at 5.05 p.m. That he has issued medical declaration certificate in this regard as per Ex.P7. 20. PW.18- Nandish Kumar is the Investigation Officer who has deposed regarding he having received the information from Child Welfare Committee, Madikeri and recording statement of victim girl on 18.02.2016 in the presence of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 PW.15- Bharathi and one Shilpa, member of Annapoorna Ujwala Samste and thereafter registering the case in Crime No.87/2016. 21. PW.13-S.Parashivamurthy is the police inspector who had taken up the further investigation from B.R. Pradeep (CPI) on 10.07.2016. He has spoken about attempt made by him to search and arrest accused No.1; about conducting spot mahazar, recording statement of PW.2, PW.5, PW.6, PW.7 and CW.5; obtaining age declaration certificate as per Ex.P5. He has also spoken about he deputing staff to arrest accused Nos.1 and 2 and their arrest on 09.08.2017; recording of voluntary statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2; obtaining blood samples for DNA profile through the doctor as per Ex.P9, 11, 12; receiving medical report of accused No.1 as per Ex.P8 subjecting blood samples under PF No.192/2017 and sending the same on 10.08.2017 to FSL Bangalore for DNA examination through PW14-HC 248-Kumar; also recording statement of victim girl under Section 164; obtaining the blood samples of baby girl born to victim PW1 on 19.08.2017; subjecting the same under PF No. 198/2017 and sending it on 20.08.2017 to FSL - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 Bangalore for DNA examination through PW14; filing the charge sheet pending DNA report. 22. PW14- HC-248 Kumar has confirmed he taking blood samples of appellant/accused No.1, victim girl and of the girl baby and handing over the same to the FSL Bangalore for DNA examination. 23. PW.16- Nanjunde Gowda, CPI, Somwarpet Circle has spoken about he receiving DNA profile report as per Ex.P19. 24. Blood samples of the appellant/accused No.1, victim girl and girl baby born to the victim girl were collected. PW.11- Dr. Yogesh has spoken about he collecting the blood samples and handing over to the Somwarpet Police to find out the biological father of baby girl. Documents produced at Exs.P9, P11 and P12 support the case of the prosecution regarding taking blood samples of the aforesaid three persons for DNA profile. His evidence has remained intact. 25. DNA profile report dated 02.01.2018 is produced at Ex.P19, contents of which would indicate that the blood - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 samples of victim girl was given DNAC code No.P-2220, blood sample of appellant/accused No.1 was given DNAC code No as P-2221 and the blood sample of baby was given DNAC code No.P-2331. The DNA profile report at Ex.P19 contains details of the method adopted, observation, reasons and conclusion. The conclusion part of the report reads as under: '' CONCLUSION: From the DNA profile results of the blood samples sent in Item nos.1, 2 and 3 it is found that: The DNA profile result of female baby, sample blood sent in item no.3 is consistent with having come from the offspring of Nithya and K. Krishna and matching with the DNA profile result of the sample blood sent in item Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Therefore, 1. Nithya, sample blood sent in item No.1 is included from being the biological mother and the source of DNA of the female baby sample blood sent in item No.3. 2. K. Krishna, sample blood sent in item No.2 is included from being the biological father and the source of DNA of female baby, sample blood sent in item No.3. '' 26. There is no dispute of any nature whatsoever with regard to the aforesaid scientific evidence produced by the prosecution establishing the fact of appellant/accused No.1 and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 victim girl being the biological father and mother respectively of the female baby born to victim girl. 27. As regards the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to inconsistency in the case of the prosecution with regard to the age of the victim girl is concerned, necessary to note that PW.1-victim girl in her examination-in-chief has specifically asserted her date of birth being 22.12.2000. There is not even a suggestion disputing the same. Further the prosecution has examined one Dharmappa D.P.-PW.8 who is in-charge headmaster of a school where the victim girl was pursuing her 10th standard. Prosecution has produced document Ex.P6 which is the school admission register, wherein the date of birth is shown as 22.12.2000. Since there is no dispute with regard to the age of the victim girl being below 18 years, no further proof in the matter is required. That apart presumption provided under Section 29 of the POCSO Act comes into operation and the burden tilts on the accused/appellant No.1 to prove the contrary. 28. In the instant case as already noted above, since the medical and scientific evidence in the nature of DNA profile - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 report categorically indicating the appellant/accused No.1 being the biological father and victim girl being the biological mother of the baby girl, hardly any room to suspect or doubt the offence committed by the appellant/accused No.1 in the matter. 29. Appropriate at this juncture also to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ganesan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police1 wherein the Apex Court at paragraph No.10.1, held as under: 10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639] , it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) “9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210] this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16). ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in 1 (2020) 10 SCC 573 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.’ 10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu [State of U.P. v. Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC 594 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 780] this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12) ‘12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.’ 11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 316] , this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21). ‘8. … The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. … The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. … Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. … Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. … *** 21. … The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.’ (emphasis in original) 12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra [State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra, (2002) 9 SCC 86 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1080] , this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh [State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 622 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 674] this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. [Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 9 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1208] placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan [Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 1213 : AIR 1952 SC 54] . 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 30. Perusal of the evidence of victim girl PW.1, and the medical evidence made available on record, in the light of - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 aforesaid enunciation of law by the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that her evidence is sterling in nature, the quality and calibre of the same has remained un-assailed. Regarding delay in filing the complaint/registration of FIR and Charge Sheet: 31. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 vehemently contended that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and registration of First Information Report as well as in filing of the charge sheet. Perusal of records would indicate, as already noted above that the incident came to light when PW.6-Revathi noticed the stomach of victim girl on 01.02.2016, when she had come to fetch water from public tap. Thereafter, she had shared the matter with CW.5-Bhavani, PW.7-Lavanya. Matter was brought to the notice of PW.5-B. Karumbaiah who is the owner of estate in which the victim girl along with her mother accused No.2, her sister PW.2 and appellant/accused No.1 were residing. It is thereafter brought to the notice of Child helpline, Kodagu, who in turn by their communication dated 16.02.2016 requested the President of Children Welfare Committee, Madikeri, Kodagu District to take action in the matter. There upon, the President of Children - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 Welfare Committee, by Communication dated 16.02.2016 as per Ex.P20 informed the Police Sub-Inspector of Somwarpet Police Station as required under Section 19(1)(b) of the POCSO Act, 2012 enclosing the letter of Child helpline, Kodagu. Thereafter, PW.18 along with PW.15 went to the Hospital at Madikeri on 18.02.2016 and recorded the statement of victim- PW.1 and registered the case in crime No.87/2016. In the meanwhile, records reveal that appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2 absconded and both victim girl and her sister were left under the care of Annapoorna Ujwala Samste, Mysore. That in the meanwhile, victim girl gave birth to baby girl on 16.03.2016. 32. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended on 09.08.2017 from Sakleshpura. The charge sheet after the investigation has been filed on 07.09.2017. 33. This Court cannot be oblivious of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. When protector becomes predator the situation becomes incomprehensible. Father of victim girl had deserted several years ago. Her mother- accused No.2 and accused No.1 were in relationship. Soon - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 after learning about victim girl being pregnant of 7-8 months her mother accused No.2 absconded with appellant/accused No.1. The situation of victim girl was nothing short of an orphan/destitute with unfortunate circumstance of she being pregnant of 7-8 months. It is the samaritan act of PW.6, which tide over the unfortunate situation. The involvement of Childline, Kodagu and Children Welfare Committee, Kodagu though belated needs to be appreciated. The recording of the statement and registration of FIR has taken place within 24 hours of communication at Ex.P20. Investigation had to be pursued and completed by apprehending appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2 which was done on 09.08.2017 and charge sheet was filed on 07.09.2017. 34. This Court is therefore of the considered view that though there is a delay as vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 in registering the FIR and filing of the charge-sheet, same is justifiable in view of the inevitable facts and circumstances as noted above. 35. Thus, the prosecution has established beyond any reasonable doubt with regard to commission of offence by - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35108-DB CRL.A No. 29 of 2019 appellant/accused No.1. On the overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has committed no error or illegality in convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012. Appeal is dismissed. Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri.K.S.Karthik Kiran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Kapil Dixit, learned panel Advocate of High Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19