- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100517 OF 2021 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION, GADAG, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.) AND: CHANNAYYA S/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: KALASAPUR TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHAND KADADEVAR, AMICUS CURIAE (ABSENT); VICTIM/ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT IS SERVED) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.11.2019 AND 04.12.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG IN SC NO. 17/2016 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.11.2019 AND 04.12.2019 SO FAR IT RELATES ACQUITTAL OF THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 376 (2) (f) (i) AND (j) OF IPC AND 323 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4 AND 8 POCSO ACT, 2012 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG (POCSO) IN S.C.NO.17/2016 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2) (f) (i) AND (j) OF IPC AND 323 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC. 4 AND 8 POCSO ACT, 2012. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) State has preferred this appeal under section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement of conviction and order on sentence dated 30th November 2019 passed in S.C.No.17 of 2016 (POCSO) by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag seeking to convict the accused for the offence under punishable under Sections 376(2)(f),(i) & (j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity “POCSO Act”), as the trial Court has convicted the accused only for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of ₹15,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Gadag filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is alleged by the prosecution that the victim is the complainant. She is living in Kalasapura - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 along with her father (accused), Grandmother-Gangavva and brother-Basayya. Her mother died when she was three years old and at the time of delivery of her brother. Since then, her paternal grandmother is taking care of her and her brother. Her father is a Lorry driver and comes home only once in 15-20 days. It is stated that since she was very young, when she was seven years old, her father used to touch her private parts and used to kiss her on her cheeks. In the month of October 2014, during school vacations, when her grandmother and her brother had gone to her aunt’s place at Chikkahandigola village, when she was alone at house in the late night, accused came home and called the victim to sleep with him. The victim replied to him that he being her father should not say so. Despite her request, accused disrobed her and committed rape on her. The next day, when the grandmother came to home, victim narrated the incident that took place on the previous night. Immediately, the grandmother called Sadiq and Umesh Itagimath, who are the elders of the village and requested them to advise the accused. In spite of the advise from elders, the accused was causing sexual harassment by calling the victim to sleep with him. It is alleged in the complaint that on 26th - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 December 2015 at about 7:30 PM when her grandmother was present in the house, the accused came to the house. The victim was in the kitchen and accused came near her and touched her inappropriately and told her that he would make a separate house for her and that she should live with him as his wife and that he would take care of her, and by saying so caused sexual harassment to her despite victim telling the accused that he should not say so being her father. Immediately, accused became angry and slapped the victim on her left ear. Upon hearing the victim’s scream, the grandmother of the victim came in. She being enraged, scolded the accused and sent him out of the house. And on the next date morning, the victim made a call to 1098 which is a Child Helpline. The staff of Child Helpline, viz. Sandeep, Ashwini Hasbi, K.K. Maalode and officials from Director of Child Protection Office, viz. P.B. Betageri, Roopa Betageri and Savita Harthi also came to the house of the victim. Before them, the victim narrated the acts of the accused like the sexual harassment meted out by him on her and the assault made by him. Thereafter, said officials brought the victim to District Hospital, Gadag for medical examination, where she was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 admitted and there the victim wrote the complaint and handed it over to the Police. The said complaint came to be registered as Crime No.343 of 2015 in Gadag Rural Police Station on 27th December 2015. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. Accused was arrested on 27th December 2015 and was released on bail on 27th February 2019. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act. The trial Court has taken cognizance for the alleged commission of offences and charges came to be framed against the accused on 12th April 2017. The accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution, in all, examined fourteen witnesses as PWs1 to 14 and marked thirteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P 13. On closure of prosecution inside evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Civil Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against him - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of Poke act and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of ₹15,000/- 4. Accused has served the sentence passed by the trial Court. The letter issued by this superintendent of Central prison Dharwad vide letter No.KeKaaDha/NyaVi-1/2887/2021-22 dated 25th November, 2021, would also reveal that the accused has served the sentence. The accused has not preferred any appeal against that judgement of conviction and order sentence against him. The State has preferred this appeal seeking to convict the accused under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act. 5. Heard Sri M.B. Gundawade, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the Appellant-State. There is no representation on behalf of the accused. The Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court has not addressed his argument and there is no representation. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submitted that the judgment and Order passed by the trial Court insofar as it relates to acquittal of the accused under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act is contrary to law and facts and evidence on record and hence the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. He would further submit that PW1 who is the daughter of the accused has consistently stated before the trial Court regarding the sexual harassment committed by the accused when she was aged seven years also deposed regarding the aggravated sexual act on her by the accused. The averment made by the complainant before the JMFC under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure which is further corroborated by the evidence of PW4 grandmother of the victim has not been properly analysed by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction. He submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW6 who is the social worker in the Child Welfare Unit who has deposed about the rescuing of victim an also filing the complaint and further deposed regarding sexual harassment meted out to the victim by the accused. The trial Court has - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 also not considered the evidence of Doctor-PW9 who has opined in the report that hymen of the victim is ruptured and hence, the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 363 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, is not sustainable in law. On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of material placed before us, the following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the prosecution has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order on sentence and to convict the respondent under Sections 376(2)(f) (i)& (j), 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act? (ii) What Order? 8. Our answer to the above points is: Point No.1: in the negative; Point No.2: as per final order. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 9. We have examined the material placed before us. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the respondent-accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. After trial, the trial Court has convicted the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.15,000/-. The respondent-accused has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against him and he has served the sentence as per the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Dharwad vide letter No.KeKaaDha/NyaVi-1/2887/2021-22 dated 25th November, 2021. However, the State has preferred this appeal seeking to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Regarding Point No.1: 10. The genesis of the case arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant who is examined as PW1 before the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 Court. The complainant has also provided her Mobile Number in the complaint. The substance of the complaint is that complainant is the resident of Kalasapur. That she was living with her father (accused), grandmother-Gangavva and her brother Basayya. Her mother died at the time of delivery of her brother. Since then, her paternal grandmother is taking care of her and her brother. Her father is a Lorry driver and comes home only once in a fortnight. It is stated that since her younger age, her father used to touch her private parts and used to kiss her inappropriately. In the month of October 2014, during school vacations, when her grandmother and her brother had gone to her aunt’s place and when she was alone, in the late night accused came home and called the victim to sleep with him. The victim replied to him that he being her father should not say so. Despite her request, accused disrobed her and committed rape on her. The next day, when the grandmother came to home, victim narrated the incident that took place on the previous night. Immediately, the grandmother the elders of the village and requested them to advise the accused. In spite of the advise from elders, accused was causing sexual harassment by calling the victim to sleep - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 with him. It is alleged in the complaint that on 26th December 2015 at about 7:30 PM when her grandmother was present in the house, the accused came to the house. The victim was in the kitchen and accused came near her and touched her inappropriately and told her that he would make a separate house for her and that she should live with him as his wife and that he would take care of her, and by saying so caused sexual harassment to her despite victim telling the accused that he should not say so being her father. Immediately, accused became angry and slapped the victim on her left ear. Upon hearing the victim’s scream, the grandmother of the victim came in. She being enraged, scolded the accused and sent him out of the house. Thus the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act. 11. The material witness, i.e. victim, was examined as PW1. She has deposed as per the averments made in Exhibit P1-complaint. She has also deposed as to the spot mahazar conducted by the police as per Exhibit P20 and also deposed as to the statement recorded by the Magistrate as per Exhibit P4. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 12. CW2-Ramesh Balakrishna, said to be the attester to mahazar examined as PW2, has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P5. 13. CW3-Gangavva Hiremath is the grandmother of the victim and the complainant, who is examined as PW4. She has deposed in her evidence that the victim is her grand-daughter. Accused is her son, who is a driver by profession. Accused used to come home in a drunken state and used to fight with the members of the house. She has deposed that the accused was causing inconvenience to the victim. She has further deposed that when she was not in the house, as told by the victim, the accused used to touch the victim inappropriately and cause inconvenience to her. She has further deposed that whenever the accused used to come home he would call the victim even though she was sleeping, forcefully wake her up and insist that she alone has to serve him the food. The accused used to call her to sleep with him and was also causing sexual harassment to her. The same was narrated to her by the victim herself. When the torture of the accused become unbearable, one day the victim called the Child Helpline and informed about her plight. The officers of Child Helpline came, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 made enquiries with her and thereafter, victim gave the complaint. She has given statement to the Police as she has deposed before the Court. 14. CW5-Karibasappa Krishnappa Malode, the Director of Child Helpline, Gadag is examined as PW5. He has deposed in his evidence that on 27th December, 2015 at about 8.00 am, he received a phone call, wherein it was informed that the father is troubling his daughter. Then, he along with staff of the Child Protection Office went to the house of the complainant for enquiry. The women staff separately enquired the victim and the victim has narrated the facts as to the act of the accused. On enquiry of the accused, he did not admit his guilt and told that victim has made false allegations against him. Then the victim was shifted to the Government Hospital for medical examination. 15. CW9-Roopa, wife of Praveenkumar Betageri, who is examined as PW6, has deposed in her evidence that she is social worker in Child Welfare Unit. That on 27th December 2015, she received a telephone call from the Child Helpline. Then she visited Kalasapur along with Praveenkumar Betageri, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 Savita Harti, K K Malode, Ashwini Hasbi and Sandeep, who are from District Child Protection Office. They have enquired the victim and counselling was done. On enquiry, the victim has narrated the facts before them. The grandmother of the victim had told to the elders of the village only as to the physical assault of the accused on the victim but told nothing about the sexual harassment of the accused on the victim, as it was the question of prestige and honour of the family. Then they shifted the victim to the Government Hospital for examination. Thereafter, victim has lodged complaint against the accused. 16. CW13-Malati Malleshappa, Woman Constable examined as PW8. She has deposed that on 28th December, 2015, as per oral direction of the Circle Inspector of Police, she went along with woman Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police B.S. Talwar, to the District Hospital, Gadag where the ASI has recorded the statement of the victim. She has further deposed that after examination of the victim, she produced the victim before the Circle Inspector of Police. 17. CW14-Mahesh Erappa Hugar, Police Constable has deposed as to the submission of first information report to the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 Court and also deposed as to the production of the victim before the District Hospital, Gadag as per the direction of Circle Inspector of Police. 18. CW15-Dr Sowhagya Talwar, Gynaecologist, has deposed as to the medical examination of the victim and issuance of report as per Exhibits P6 and P7. 19. CW11-Sadiq Rehmansab Shaik, has deposed that he knows CW4-Gangavva and the accused. The wife of the accused is no more. He knows the family members of the accused. Further, he has deposed that the accused, about two and a half years prior, came home fully drunk and was unnecessarily fighting with his mother and daughter. He has advised the accused not to fight with the family members. His mother has also requested him to advise the accused and even made a request to one Umesh Itagimath. The said Umesh Itagimath died about three months back. During the lifetime, Umesh Itagimath has also advised the accused to behave properly with family members and not to quarrel with them. He has further deposed that he does not know as to what happened after he advised the accused. This witness was - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 treated as hostile witness with the permission of the Court and was cross-examined. During the cross-examination also he has not stated anything against the accused. 20. CW18-Sri Vijayakumar M. Assistant Executive Engineer, who is examined as PW11 has deposed in his evidence as to the preparation of sketch as per Exhibit P8 at the instance of Circle Inspector of Police, Gadag Rural Police Station in respect of Crime No.344 of 2015. 21. CW16-Dr. Rajendra Channappa Basarigadad, Medical Officer has deposed in his evidence as to the physical and genital examination of the accused and he has also deposed as to issuance of report Exhibit P9. 22. CW20-Somashekar G. Juttal, Circle Inspector of Police has deposed as to the investigation conducted and also filing of charge sheet against the accused. 23. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence placed before this Court, the questions would be whether the same would make it crystal clear that the alleged offences fall under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 and 8 of the POCSO Act? To ascertain the same, the materials placed before us have to be examined. 24. It is alleged in the Complaint-Exhibit P1 that the alleged offence took place in the month of October, 2014. It is admitted fact that after one year after the alleged incident, i.e. on 26th December, 2015, the complainant has disclosed that the accused has committed rape on her in the month of October, 2014. The prosecution has not properly explained with regard to the delay in filing the complaint as the offence alleged is said to have been taken place in the month of October, 2014. After lapse of more than fifteen months, i.e. on 26th December, 2015, the victim has made complaint to the police as to the alleged incident which pertains to the physical assault and sexual harassment said to have committed by the accused on the victim, allegedly, about an year ago. The Investigation Officer has produced the victim before the learned JMFC First Court, Gadag on 28th December, 2015 before whom also the victim has reiterated the averments made in Complaint-Exhibit P1. She has not explained anything as to the delay in filing the complaint regarding the alleged incident said to have occurred in the month of October, 2014. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 25. Exhibit P5-Mahazar also reveals the Police have conducted this mahazar in respect of the alleged incident said to have took place in the month of October 2014, resulting in alleged rape conducted by the accused on the victim. PW1 in her evidence also has not deposed anything as to the delay in filing the complaint with regard to the alleged incident said to have taken place in the month of October 2014. Material witness PW4-Gangavva who is the grandmother of the victim, has not whispered anything as to the alleged rape committed by accused in the month of October 2014. On the contrary, she has deposed that the victim has narrated only as to the fact as to the harassment and physical assault meted out by the accused on the victim. 26. It is alleged in the complaint that after the alleged incident of rape, on the next day, PW4-Gangavva called the elders of the village, viz. Sadiq and Umesh Itagimath to advise her son-accused to behave properly with the victim. The said Sadiq who is examined as PW10, has not deposed anything as to the alleged commission of a rape said to have committed by accused on the victim. Even after treating him as hostile - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 witness, the prosecution has not elicited any favourable answer from him to substantiate its case. 27. Exhibit P6 is the medical examination of the victim which reveals that the victim has been produced before the Medical Officer with the history of sexual intercourse occurred a year back. 28. Exhibit P7 is the letter addressed by PW9-Dr. Soubhagya Talawar to the Circle Inspector, Gadag Rural Police, wherein she has intimated that since case relates to the history of rape which is alleged to have occurred one year back, she has not taken any sample of nail, pubic hair, swabs of vagina and cervix for examination and victim was referred to dentist for age, estimation. Psychologist and blood grouping done. She has deposed that the victim’s hymen is ruptured and has given the report that “on examination of victim, there may or may not be exposure of sexual assault on the victim”. On appreciation of all these evidences placed before the court, there are no satisfactory, cogent or collaborative, convincing and evidence to prove the alleged commission of offence under Sections 376(2((f)(i)(j) and 323 of Indian Penal Code and under - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 Sections 4 and eight of POCSO Act. It is admitted by the PW1 that the alleged incident which pertains to have occurred in the month of October 2014. At that time, PW1 was studying in SSLC. Exhibit PW1 complaint itself reveals that the complainant has given her mobile number in the complaint. She was aware of the Child Helpline number at the time of filing the complaint which was filed on 26th December 2015, i.e. after more than one year of the alleged rape. Under such circumstance, if the accused had committed the alleged rape on the victim, she would have informed the same to the Child Helpline, but she has not done so. Investigating Officer has also not explained anything in this record. Apart from this, PW4-the Grandmother and custodian of PW1 and another material witness PW10-Sadiq, have also not deposed anything as to the alleged commission of rape said to have committed by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. 29. Yet another aspect that is to be noticed is, as deposed by the complainant herself, she is a sports girl and she has participated in many of the sports events representing the school. As per the Medical Jurisprudence, sports activities like gymnastics, horseback riding, cycling, climbing, and dancing - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 can tear the hymen. As deposed by the complainant herself that she is a sports girl, chances of rupture of hymen during the course of sports activities, also cannot be ruled out. 30. It is also pertinent here to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AMBIKA PRASAD v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) reported in (2000)2 SCC 646, wherein it is held that the criminal trial is meant for doing justice not just to the accused but also to the victim and the society, so that law and order is maintained. It was further held that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. It was held that a judge preside over criminal trial also to see that guilty may does not escape. The said judgment was again followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAM GULAR CHAUDHURY AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 2001 SUPP(3) 279. 31. Upon a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) and 323 of IPC, as well as under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. However, after evaluating - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and other materials on record, the trial Court correctly observed that although the accused was not specifically charged under Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act which constitute lesser offences it is well settled that if the prosecution fails to prove the charged major offences, the Court is empowered to convict the accused for minor offences that are disclosed by the evidence, even if not formally charged. Accordingly, the trial Court held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, convicted him, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs.15,000/-. Notably, the accused has not challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence, and has since undergone the full term of five years’ incarceration. In light of the above discussion, we find no illegality, infirmity, or error in the trial Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. 32. Regarding Point No.2: For the aforestated reasons, we proceed to pass the following: - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4304-DB CRL.A No. 100517 of 2021 O R D E R (i) Appeal is dismissed; (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30th November, 2019 passed in S.C. No.17 of 2016 (POCSO) by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, is confirmed; (iii) Registry to send a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records to the concerned Court forthwith. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn ct-cmu