- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: PRAVEEN @ PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O DAVID, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDING AT KRISHNAPPA'S HOUSE, SONNENAHALLI, DODDABASTI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 054. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA K.C., ADVOCATE) (V/O DT.27/6/25, APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE) AND: STATE BY KENGERI POLICE, BANGALOER CITY. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.(SESSIONS)-XI, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.233/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366(A) OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366A OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being the accused in SC No.233/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court (Sessions) - XI, Bengaluru, is impugning the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2012, and order of sentence dated 20.12.2012, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366A of IPC, with default sentence. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, on 23.05.2011 at 7.30 a.m., the accused induced the minor girl with an intention to marry, and took her to Mahadeshwara temple, and stayed in the rented house belonging to PW2, till 11.06.2011 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 366A of IPC. 2. It is stated that, on 23.05.2011, the victim girl left her house at 7.30 a.m., under the guise of attending a special - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 class. Later, she never returned to the house. The first information came to be filed on 24.05.2011 as per Ex.P1. FIR came to be registered as per Ex.P3. On 29.05.2011, the informant- the mother of the victim received information that, accused and the victim are near Gollrapalya bus stand. She informed this fact to the police and went to the spot along with them. They found the accused and victim. Victim was rescued and accused was taken to the police station. After investigation, the final report came to be filed. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. 3. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, got marked Exs.P1 to 3 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. 4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 5. Heard Sri.Nithin Gowda K.C, learned Amicus curiae for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 7. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence under section 366A of IPC as he induced the minor girl and procured her knowing fully well that she will be forced to have illicit intercourse with another person. The facts of the case narrated above do not attract Section 366A of IPC, as it is not the contention of the prosecution that the accused procured the minor girl knowing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 fully well that she will be forced to have illicit intercourse with another person. 8. PW1 - the mother of the victim girl lodged the first information stating that, on 23.05.2011, at 7.30 am., her daughter, the victim girl left the house at 7.30 am., to attend a special class. Later, she never returned to the house. She suspected, that the accused who was familiar with the victim, might have taken her away. 9. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 11.06.2011, she received a phone call that the accused and victim are near the Gollarapalya bus stand. She went to the spot, along with the police and found the accused and the victim girl subsequently, they were taken to the police station. 10. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused had taken the victim girl to Mahadeshwara temple, where they got married. Later, they stayed in a lodge for few days. PW3 - the victim states that she stayed with the accused in the lodging room for 5 days i.e., till 29.05.2011. PW6 who is the owner of lodge deposed that the accused and the victim stayed there only for 2 days. He also states that he had taken the documents pertaining to the accused and victim and also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 collected their phone numbers. No such materials were seized by the police, nor the register maintained at the lodge is seized to prove the contention of the prosecution that, the victim and the accused have stayed there for sometime. No mahazar was drawn at that place. 11. It is the next contention of the prosecution that, the accused taken the victim girl and stayed in the rented house belonging to PW2 for sometime. PW2 deposes before the Trial Court that, he had given his house to accused to stay with the victim girl. Admittedly, there are no documents like, lease deed or rent form that was obtained by PW2. Strangely, the Investigating Officer has not even drawn mahazar in the house of PW2, where the victim and the accused were staying together for sometime. 12. It is the contention of the prosecution that the victim was aged 17 ½ years at the time of incident. The date of birth of the victim is not known. No birth certificate or school records were produced to prove her age. When it is the contention of the prosecution that the victim was studying in a college, definitely, the documents pertaining to her date of birth was available, but the Investigating Officer has not collected the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 same. The prosecution papers discloses that the accused was aged 20 years at the time of incident. 13. It is pertinent to note that, during cross examination, PW3 states that she left the house on 23.05.2011 to attend the special class, and had taken two sets of dresses while leaving. There is absolutely, no explanation as to why she had gone along with extra dresses from the house even before meeting the accused. Admittedly, both of them went in the public transport to Mahadeshwara temple and thereafter, to various places. But the victim never raised alarm to attract the attention of any other person. 14. It is also pertinent to note that, it is the contention of the prosecution that from 23.05.2011 till 11.06.2011, victim was with the accused. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the accused has committed sexual assault of any nature. Admittedly, the victim was not subjected to medical examination. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the case made out by the prosecution is doubtful. It has failed to establish its contention that the victim was a minor, who was procured by the accused Knowing fully well that she will be subjected to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 forcible intercourse and that the offence punishable under Section 366A of IPC was convicted. The prosecution has utterly failed to make out even the prima-facie case of committing the offence. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled for acquittal. 15. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The Trial Court unfortunately, ignoring all these facts and circumstances as discussed above, and proceeded to convict the accused on the basis of shabby evidence led by the prosecution. Hence, it calls for interference. 16. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2012 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2012 passed in SC.No.233/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court (Sessions) - XI, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 366A of IPC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26841 CRL.A No. 72 of 2013 (iv) Bail bond of the accused and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. (v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him after the appeal period is over. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment, for information and needful action. Fees for the amicus curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/- and the registry is directed to pay the same. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13