- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:938 CRL.A No. 100412 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100412 OF 2022 (C) BETWEEN: PUTTU @ TUKARAMA S/O. PANDU GOUDA AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. MASON WORK, R/O. MANGALAWADA VILLAGE, TQ. HALIYAL, DIST. KARWAR-581329. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, SRI. GIRISH V.BHAT AND SRI. SANKET S.BHANDURGI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HALIYAL POLICE STATION, NOW R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARAD BENCH-580011. 2. CLEMINTAN D/O. INAS NAJARET AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MANGALWAD VILLAGE, TQ. HALIYAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581329. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SANTOSH B.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 04.12.2021 AND 06.12.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1 U.K.KARWAR, (SPECIAL B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.25 11:20:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:938 CRL.A No. 100412 of 2022 COURT FOR TRAIL OF CASES FILED UNDER POSCO ACT) IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 06/2015, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SENTENCING TO UNDERGO REGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 10 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 376 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, fully aware that C.W.1 (the survivor) was a minor, communicated with her over the phone and expressed his love for her. In January 2014, despite knowing her minor status, the accused frequently called the survivor with the intent to have an illicit relationship. He coerced her to visit his land, threatening to disclose their alleged relationship if she refused. Subsequently, the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her, resulting in the survivor’s pregnancy and the birth of a male child. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20, marked documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.31(a), and produced a material object (M.O.1). The Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had established the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:938 CRL.A No. 100412 of 2022 4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant were duly heard. 5. The prosecution produced a DNA report (Exhibit P.23) to establish that the accused is the biological father of the male child born to the survivor. At the time of the incident, the survivor was 15 years old, while the accused was 21 years old. However, the survivor and other key prosecution witnesses did not support the case and were treated as hostile. This indicates that the sexual relationship between the accused and the survivor was consensual, resulting in the birth of a male child on December 17, 2014. 6. The accused and the survivor, represented by their counsel, appeared before this Court and stated that they are married. Their marriage has been registered with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, Haliyal (U.K.), and they are currently leading a harmonious matrimonial life. To substantiate this, the appellant produced a Certificate of Marriage issued by the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Haliyal. 7. The object of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) is to protect minors from sexual abuse and not to criminalize consensual relationships between adolescents who engage in sexual intercourse without understanding its legal and societal consequences. The appellant and the survivor belong to a lower socio- economic background with limited access to information and education, which deprived them of the awareness of the consequences of their actions. While consensual intercourse with a minor is an offence under the POCSO Act, considering the specific facts and circumstances of this case, quashing the impugned proceedings is necessary to secure the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:938 CRL.A No. 100412 of 2022 ends of justice. Failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice for both the survivor and the child, rather than securing the ends of justice. 8. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are not legally. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2021 and the order of sentence dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-FTSC-I U.K., Karwar (Special Court for trial of cases filed under POCSO Act) is hereby set aside, and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. iii) Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63