- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1478 OF 2017 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01 …APPELLANT (BY SMT M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP) AND: MOULI @ CHANDRAMOULI B N S/O NAGARAJA Y R/O BENKIKERE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.04.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIOSN JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.99/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366,354,504,506,509 OF IPC AND SEC.8,12 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.99/2016 dated 13.04.2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Davanagere (hereinafter referred as 'the learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, "the POCSO Act"). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2015 at about 12.30 p.m. the respondent-accused enticed the victim-complainant, a minor daughter of PW1 to accompany him to Holalkere to visit Prasanna Ganapati Temple and forcibly kidnapped her in his vehicle i.e., Mahendra Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-17-B-7617 and took her to Halenahalli village, Holalkere Taluk to the house of one Ramachandrappa i.e., CW.15. Later, with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her, he outraged her modesty by touching her private - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 parts of her body against her will. Later the victim after returned to her house, informed the same to her father i.e., PW1. However, they failed to lodge any complaint for a period of eleven days. Subsequently, the accused sent the obscene photos and messages to the mobile phone of PW1 i.e., father of the victim. As such, victim-PW2 lodged a complainant before the Channagiri Police station on 05.11.2025 as per Ex.P1 against the accused. 3. On the strength of Ex.P1, the then PSI of the said police station, registered the case against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 366, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No.434/2015 as per Ex.P18-FIR. Subsequently, PW.9 and PW.10 conducted the investigation by arresting the accused and drawn the relevant mahazar and after obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authority, PW10 laid the chargesheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences before the learned Sessions Judge. 4. After securing the presence of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 for the aforementioned offences and read over the same to the accused. However, accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused before the Trial Court, the prosecution in total examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. 6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused is a total denial and that of false implication. However, the accused neither examined any witness nor produced any documents on his behalf. 7. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged by the State in this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 8. I have heard Smt.M.M.Waheeda, learned HCGP for the appellant-State and Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for the respondent-accused. 9. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality since the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective. She contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.2 i.e., the victim girl, which itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, since she has categorically deposed about the act committed by the accused. Further, her evidence corroborates with the contents of Ex.P1- the compliant. Further PW1 i.e., father and PWs.3 to 5 - the family members of the victim have supported the case of the prosecution and clearly stated about the act committed by the accused. According to her, the prosecution also proved the spot of the incident by examining PW.6 and the investigation officers - PWs.8 and 9. 10. According to the learned HCGP on a collective reading of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. She also contended that the Sessions Court has failed to appreciate the crucial aspect of the matter that the victim was a minor at the time of incident and to prove the same, the prosecution has examined Ex.P17-the certificate issued by the Head Master of the Higher Primary School, Vaddanahal, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. Hence, the judgment under this appeal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal and convict the accused for the charges leveled against him. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- accused submits that the learned Sessions Judge, after meticulously examining the evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that evidence of PW2-the victim girl cannot be believed for the reason that in her cross- examination, she has clearly admitted that she voluntarily accompanied the accused till Halenahalli village along with the friends of accused. Further there is an inordinate delay of 11 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 days in lodging the complaint. The said delay has not been explained by the prosecution by assigning valid reasons. 13. He further contended that though the prosecution placed Ex.P17- the school certificate to prove the age of the victim, the prosecution has failed to examine the author of Ex.P17 i.e., Head Master of the said school. He also contended that the prosecution has also failed to place any other authenticated documents to prove that the victim was minor at the time of incident as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 14. He also contended that the evidence of other witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3 to 5 cannot be relied to prove the charges leveled against the accused for the reason that all these witnesses are hearsay witnesses and they deposed as per the say of PW.2. When the evidence of PW.2 itself creates a doubt, then much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of hearsay witnesses. He also contended that PW.1 i.e., father of the victim has failed to state why he has not lodged any complaint for a period of 11 days even after the victim allegedly informed him about the alleged kidnap and the attempt made - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 by the accused for sexual assault to victim. In such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and this aspect of the matter is properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence and other documents produced by the learned HCGP, the points that arise for my consideration is - (i) Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality? (ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012? 16. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also on the evidence and documents placed by the prosecution. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 17. As could be gathered from evidence of PW.2 - victim, the criminal law was set into motion by lodging Ex.P1 on 05.11.2015 alleging that on 25.10.2015 the accused kidnapped her to Halenahalli and made her to stay in the house of CW15 one Ramachandrappa. Thereafter, the accused made an attempt to outrage her modesty. However, she escaped from the clutches of the accused and returned to her house on the same day and informed the same to her father i.e., PW.1 and other relatives i.e., PWs.3 to 5. Interestingly, either herself or her father i.e., PW.1 or relatives not lodged any complainant for a period of 11 days. However, it is stated that on 05.11.2015 the accused send the photos of the victim and accused, along with the obscene messages to PW1 through whatsapp to his phone. Thereafter, PW.2 lodged a complaint i.e., Ex.P1. Though PW.2 reiterated the assertion made in the compliant in her evidence i.e., examination-in-chief, however, in her cross- examination she has specifically admitted that till reaching Halenahalli village herself, accused and the friends of the accused were together and she did not question the accused as to why he has taken her to Halenahalli instead of Prasanna Ganapati Temple at Holalkere. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 18. It is her further case that she accompanied the accused to the house of CW.15 where the accused allegedly outraged her modesty. The prosecution has failed to examine CW.15-Ramachandra, a star witness in whose house, the accused and victim allegedly stayed for a day and accused allegedly outraged the modesty of the victim. 19. Further, it is the case of PW.2 that she returned to her house and informed the incident to her father. But her father did not lodge any complaint to the police on the same day and that they lodged the complaint only after 11 days from the date of the alleged incident. The reason for not lodging the complaint for a period of 11 days, even after the victim informing about incident to her father-PW.1, is not explained by PW.1. 20. Further it could be gathered from the evidence of PW.2-the victim that the victim was studying second PUC and the accused was known to her as on the relevant date. On the date of alleged incident, the accused came near the college of the victim in his vehicle and called her to accompany him to Prasanna Ganapati Temple and without any hesitation, she - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 went along with him. This conduct of the victim creates a doubt in the mind of this Court that the accused and victim were known to each other and there may be a love affair between them. 21. As regards the argument of the learned HCGP that even if the act of the accused was with the consent of the victim, the same cannot be considered as a consent in the eye of law for the reason that the victim was a minor girl at the time of incident is concerned, I have perused Ex.P17-the certificate issued by the Head Master of Higher Primary School, Vaddanahal. As stated supra the prosecution has not examined the author of Ex.P17. There is no explanation forth coming on record as to on what basis Ex.P17 was issued by the Head Master. 22. It is settled position by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of judgments that in order to prove the age of the victim, the prosecution has to rely on the authenticated documents like birth certificate or transfer certificate or any other certificate issued by the concerned authority as per the provisions of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 Rules. In the instant case, except Ex.P17, absolutely no other documents placed by the prosecution. Even otherwise, the author of Ex.P17 has not been examined by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that PW2-the victim in her cross- examination admitted that she was unable to state her exact age as on the date of incident. However, she stated that she was aged 17 years and above. 23. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a minor as on the date of incident by placing authenticated documents and cogent evidence. No doubt the other witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 3 to 5 have supported the case of the prosecution. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, all these witnesses are hearsay witnesses deposed as per the say of PW.2, that too after lapse of 11 days. In such circumstances, much credence cannot be attached to their evidence. As discussed supra, since the very testimony of PW.2 is not trustworthy to rely, the uncorroborated evidence of other witnesses cannot also be relied to prove the charges leveled against the accused. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34105 CRL.A No. 1478 of 2017 24. The learned Sessions Judge has elaborately discussed aforesaid aspects and passed a reasoned judgment. Further, this is an appeal against acquittal. It is settled position of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that if the Trial Court has taken a plausible view, then the acquittal judgment cannot be overturned by the Appellate Court. In the case on hand, I am of the view that the Trial Court has taken a plausible view. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the judgment under this appeal does not call for any interference. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the 'negative' and point No.2 in the 'affirmative'. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13