- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 716 OF 2024 (C) BETWEEN: PRABHU @ YESU S/O SRI. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NO. 303, SITE NO. 255 10TH CROSS, NEAR CHURCH AKKIYAPPA GARDEN MOHANKUMARNAGAR YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU 560 022 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH YESHWANTHPURA POLICE REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001 2. SRI. VENKATESH S/O CHAKRAVELU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O NO. 254, 10TH MAIN Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 CHURCH ROAD AKKIYAPPA GARDEN MOHANKUMAR NAGAR YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU 560 022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC II BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.214/2021 CONVICTING AND SENTENCING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.363,376(2)(n) OF IPC AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2024 and order on sentence dated 05.03.2024 passed in Spl.C.C.No.214/2021 on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge FTSC-II, Bengaluru. Wherein, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and 3 are the husband and wife. P.W.2 is the victim, who is their daughter and they are the residents of MohanKumar Nagara, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru. The accused is the resident of same area and he was living abutting to the house of P.W.1. He is stated to have developed intimacy with the victim girl and he used to give eatables to the victim often. It is further stated that one and half months prior to lodging of the complaint, the appellant took the victim girl to his house and committed sexual assault on her. It is further stated that he had committed sexual intercourse on several occasions. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 3. On 05.01.2021 at about 9.00 A.M, the accused enticed the victim and kidnapped her from lawful guardianship. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent – Police have registered a case, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to 15 and got marked 31 documents as per Ex-P.1 to P.31 and also identified material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3. The Trial Court recorded the conviction for the offences stated supra. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence is contrary to the evidence on record and opposed to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. It is further submitted that the Trial Court should have noticed that there are several glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 which prima-facie go to the root of the case. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that on 05.01.2021, appellant took her out and after roaming, he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 brought her back to home and committed sexual assault. Whereas, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she did not disclose that she had been sexually assaulted. 7. It is further stated that when the entire case is based on the evidence of sole prosecutrix, her evidence must be sterling in nature and she must be a sterling witness, on reading of her evidence, there are lot of inconsistencies. Hence, she cannot be termed as sterling witness. However, the Trial Court acted on her evidence and recorded the conviction which is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, vehemently, justified the judgment of conviction and further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 who is the victim of the case is consistent. The appellant being a resident of abutting house of the victim, had developed intimacy with her and committed sexual assault on the victim on several occasions. P.W.1 to 3 are the material witnesses. Their evidence is considered as cogent and relevant. The Doctor who - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 conducted the medical examination of the victim, submitted a report as per Ex-P.4. As per the said report she had been subjected to sexual assault. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is proper and justifiable. There is no irregularity in the judgment. Hence, interference with the said judgment is not necessary. Making such submission the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction, though, the prosecution registered a case under Section 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the conviction has been recorded for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. 10. Now, it is relevant to refer the evidence of all the witnesses to re-appreciate the case of the prosecution. 11. P.W.1 is stated to be the father of the victim. According to him the age of the victim is 11 years and he is a hearsay witness. P.W.2 is the victim girl, she supported the case of the prosecution that she had been subjected to sexual assault on several occasions on the pretext of false promise of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 marriage. According to her, on 05.01.2021 at about 9.00 A.M, the appellant had taken her outside, after buying her new clothes, he brought her back and he is stated to have committed sexual assault on her. Thereafter, she disclosed the said facts to her parents. The father of the victim girl after having receiving the said information, lodged a complaint before the respondent - Police. P.W.3 is the mother of the victim, she also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 was working as Head Master of the School, where the victim has studied, he produced Ex-P.6 – Admission Register. As per Ex-P.6, the date of birth of the victim is 11.07.2009. P.W.5 was working as Doctor at M.S.Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital. She is stated to have examined the victim on 06.01.2021. According to her the victim had been subjected to sexual assault. She produced medical certificate as per Ex-P.4. P.W.7 is stated to be the witness to Ex-P.11 and he supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.8 was working as W.P.S.I of Subramanya Nagara Police Station and she is stated to have recorded the statement and after conducting counseling to the victim. The same is marked as Ex-P.4. P.W.9 was working as Police Inspector of Yeshvanthapura Police Station. He is stated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 to have conducted investigation and submitted the charge- sheet. P.W.10 is a relative of the victim. According to him he had seen the accused along with the victim on several occasions and the appellant used to visit the house of the victim along with his child. P.W.11 was working as Engineer, he is stated to have prepared a sketch of the place where the alleged incident had taken place. P.W.13 was working as Assistant Director, F.S.L, she conducted the examination of the items sent to her and submitted the report as per Ex-P.17. 12. On over all reading of evidence of all the witnesses, it appears from the record that P.W.2 being a victim had supported the case of the prosecution by stating that she had been subjected to sexual assault on several occasions in her house and also in the house of the appellant. Assuming that the said aspect is believable, the fact remains that, on 05.01.2021, the appellant took the victim outside and after buying new clothes to her, he brought her back to the house and committed sexual assault. However, in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C she did not disclose before the Magistrate that she had been subjected to sexual assault on that day. This creates doubt regarding genuineness of the incident. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 13. No doubt, the entire case is based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. If, the entire case is based on the evidence of sole prosecutrix, her evidence must be of sterling in nature. In case, if, any slight doubt is arisen, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 14. In the present case, the evidence of the victim appears to be unbelievable and cannot be acted upon. However, the Trial Court appreciated her evidence and recorded the conviction which is improper and unjustifiable. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2024 and order on sentence dated 05.03.2024 passed in Spl.C.C.No.214/2021 on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge FTSC-II, Bengaluru, for the offences stated supra, is hereby, set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39682 CRL.A No. 716 of 2024 iii. The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. iv. Bail bonds executed, if any, stands cancelled. v. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned jail authorities, forthwith. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43