- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1037 OF 2018 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JNANA BHARATHI POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU – 01 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) AND: 1. MADHU S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT C/O RAMA RAO’S HOUSE NEAR KRISHNA TEMPLE JNANA JYOTHI NAGAR MALLATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 560072 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ARESAMUDRA VILLAGE MADAKASHIRA MANDALAM ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 2. PRADEEP S/O NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.911, POST OFFICE ROAD TYAVANAGI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE PRESENLY R/AT NO.368/A MPM LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI ROAD BENGALURU – 560072 3. RAJA S/O RAMANIJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.6, ASHWATHAPPA’S RENTED HOSUE MPM LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLIL ROAD BENGALURU – 560072 PERMANENT R/OF ARESAMUDRA VILLAGE MADAKASHIRA MANDALAM ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 4. GANGADHARA @ GANGA S/O RAMAKAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT NO.6, N G E F ROAD H. VENKATESHAPPA VATARA MALLATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 560072 PERMANENT R/O MADAKASHIRA MANDALAM ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVICHANDRA T C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3; SRI K N PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.01.2018 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.64/2015 ON THE FILE OF L ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 366(A), 376, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) This appeal is filed by the State praying this Court to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 08.01.2018 passed in Spl. C.C.No.64/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 366(A), 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and convict the accused for the charges leveled against them. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 3. The factual matrix of case of the prostitution is that on 04.10.2012 at about 09.00 a.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention to kidnap the victim girl, came near H.M.R. School situated at 3rd Cross, Jnana Jyothi Nagar, Ullala Main Road, Jnana Bharathi, Bengaluru where the victim girl was studying and caught hold of her forcibly, dragged and pushed her inside the Tavera car bearing Reg. No.KA41-8910 wherein accused Nos.3 to 5 sitting inside the car, kidnapped her and accused No.1 taken the victim girl to Indira Betta, Pavagada Taluk and subjected her for sexual act forcibly. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for the above offences and investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claims for trial. Hence, the prosecution examined the witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P26 and material objects at MO1 to MO4. The accused persons were also subjected to 313 statement and they have not led any defence evidence. 4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, extracted the evidences and admissions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 of the prosecution witnesses and comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case and acquitted the accused persons. 5. The main contention of the learned Additional SPP appearing for the State is that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. Absolutely there is no deliberation and discussion of the evidence. The Trial Court has reached to a wrong conclusion which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court is a wrong notion of the Trial Court when there was no any major omissions and contradictions. But Trial Court comes to a conclusion that prosecution has not proved the case. PW1 is the school Head master who has issued the birth certificate and who is also a panch witness to the case of the prosecution from where the victim came to be kidnapped. PW2 is the medical officer who has examined victim girl. PW3 is the brother of victim girl and PW4 is the victim girl. PW5 is the mother of the victim. PW6 and PW7 are the teachers of the school wherein victim girl was pursuing her education. PW8 is the medical officer who has examined the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 respondent/accused. PW9 to PW14 are the part of investigation team who have investigated the case. Trial Court failed to take note of the evidence of these witnesses. When the victim herself has clearly deposed that on 04.10.2012 at about 09.00 a.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 with a common intention of kidnapping her, forcibly dragged her to a vehicle and she was taken to Pavagada and thereafter to Indira Betta. PW1 has clearly deposed that as per Ex.P3, the date of birth of victim was 13.07.1980 and as such, she was a minor at the time of incident. The evidence of medical officer corroborated with the evidence of victim girl. The Trial Court failed to consider both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The Trial Court while acquitting the accused, was not at all considered the Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for determination of the age of the victim and has slipped into great error by holding that prosecution has not proved the age of the victim with cogent evidence. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when there is cogent evidence before the Court, the same ought to have been relied upon by the Trial Court but the same has not been done. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused would vehemently contend that the Trial Court considered evidence of each of the witnesses and the same is extracted in detail and the Trial Court particularly taken note of evidence of PW4 victim girl. Trial Court noticed the fact that when victim was missing from the school, she was wearing uniform, but when she was apprehended, she was wearing chudidar. In this regard, there is no explanation that how she got changed the cloth. The counsel also would submit that according to the prosecution, victim was kidnapped in a car, but the fact is that, from Goraguntepalya, they travelled in a private bus to Pavagada, thereafter they went to lonely place of Indira Betta. The counsel would vehemently contend that from Pavagada they travelled to Ananthapura in a train. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court. The counsel would submit that when the allegation of sexual act was made, no mahazar was drawn and the same is observed by the Trial Court in paragraph 82. The Trial Court also made an observation that authenticated document was not obtained from school authority to show that as on the date of alleged incident, i.e., 04.10.2012, the victim girl has not attended the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 examination. The counsel would submit that each and every witnesses evidences are considered and extracted in the judgment by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. 7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this appeal is: 1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the charges leveled against them and whether it require interference of this Court? 2. What order? 8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of oral and documentary evidence available on record, we have given anxious consideration to the evidence available on record. The sum and substance of the case of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 prosecution is that on 04.10.2012, accused Nos.1 to 4 have kidnapped the victim girl and accused No.1 subjected her for sexual act forcibly. Hence, a case was registered invoking the offences punishable under Sections 366, 366(A), 376, 506 read with 34 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was subjected to sexual act. But on perusal of the evidence of the doctor, it clearly discloses that dental examination, ossification examination and radiological examination was not conducted to prove that the victim was minor as on the date of the alleged incident. Non-production of material facts with regard to the age of the victim girl through the doctor is absolutely fatal to the case of the prosecution and the same is observed in paragraph 18 of the judgment by the Trial Court. 9. Apart from that the Court has to take note of evidence of PW2 who is a doctor. PW2 evidence is also not supports the case of the prosecution to prove that the victim was subjected to sexual act. The evidence of PW2 is that on examination, except abrasion marks on the left hand and the same were also cured and other injury on the right leg and the hymen was intact. Even collected pubic hair, nail clippings, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 vaginal swab and same were sent for FSL and FSL report is that not found any seminal stains. Based on the FSL report, gave the report that victim was not subjected to sexual act. Thus, the medical evidence is against the evidence of PW4-victim girl. PW4-victim girl deposes before the Court that she was studying in a particular school and claims that she was forced to love accused No.1 or otherwise, he will kill her and he was moving around her house. She also says that on the date of incident, there was an examination. Though PW4 deposes that she was forcibly dragged into the car, but in the cross-examination, admission was given that she was having acquaintance with accused No.1 from last one year. Though she denies that they were very close, when photo was confronted to her, she admits the same and so also admission was given by her that the said photo was taken near the Krishna temple and in said photo herself and accused No.1 were also there in order to show that she was having acquaintance with accused No.1. Her evidence is that she was dragged by accused No.1 into the car and at that time, accused Ganga was also there. But for the first time, she is deposing the same. Apart from that she categorically says that when she was taken to the car, the timings was 09.10 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 a.m. and she was wearing the uniform and she has not changed her cloth in Goragunteplaya. But she has changed her cloth and she does not know the place where she has changed the cloth. PW4 categorical admission was given that she has not brought any other cloth. The Trial Court also taken note of admission given that Indira Betta is a lonely place and when PW4 was in the said area, she was wearing chudidar and they were not visible and two accused persons were standing outside. When PW4 and accused No.1 were near the bush, they were not visible. Categorical admission is given that for the first time, PW4 is deposing before the Court that accused No.1 committed the sexual act on her. It is also admitted that accused No.1 has not given any statement before the IO that he made an attempt to commit the offence of sexual act in the train and also admits that when they went to the railway station, it was 10o clock. 10. The Trial Court extracted the admission of PW4 wherein she categorically deposed before the Court that for the first time she was deposing that she was subjected to sexual act. But the medical evidence is very clear that hymen was - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 intact and there was no any sign of subjecting her for sexual act and FSL report is also negative in this regard. Taken note of the evidence of PW4 as well as the evidence of PW5 mother. Though PW5 also deposes in the manner of the evidence what PW4 is given, but she categorically admits in her cross- examination that she only used to drop the children to the school and she left the school at around 09.10 a.m. She also admits that her daughter was wearing the uniform on the date of the incident. She gave the complaint at around 09.00 to 9.30 a.m. Incident was taken place at 9o clock. In her evidence, she stated that victim was kidnapped in a car. In further statement, she clarified the same. She also categorically admits that once the children were dropped to the school, while coming out in between from the school, permission is required. This admission also taken note of by the Trial Court and extracted the same. PW6, who is a school teacher, in her evidence, she categorically admitted that she came to know about the incident when brother had screamed at the spot. Thus, her admission is very clear that she did not witness the incident. She also categorically admits that she was along with PW5 and PW5 only brought her to give evidence before the Court. Taken - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 note of evidence of the victim and so also the medical evidence of the doctor PW2 as well as the evidence of the mother-PW5 and also the school teacher-PW6. The brother-PW3 though stated that he had witnessed the screaming by the victim girl, his evidence not inspires the confidence of the Court. 11. On the other hand, documents of ‘C’ series are also marked before the Court. Exs.C1, C2, C3 and C4 are the letter correspondences between both of them. Having considered the evidence and admission on the part of PW4, Ex.P9 medical examination report in respect of the accused as well as Ex.P4 in respect of the victim girl which clearly shows that hymen was intact and no sign of sexual act and the presence of seminal stain was not detected in the specimen sent and presence of spermatozoa was not detected in the specimen sent and FSL report is also Negative in this regard. Considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, we do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court since the Trial Court in detail extracted the evidence of material witnesses who have been examined before the Court and comes to a conclusion that medical evidence not supports the case of the prosecution and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 the evidence of PW4 victim girl is also inconsistent because PW4 deposes that for the first time, she deposes before the Court that she was subjected to sexual act. Thus, the evidence of PW4 does not inspire the confidence of the Court. When the both oral and documentary evidence was considered by the Trial Court in a proper perspective, we do not find any ground to comes to other conclusion. It is also settled law that while reversing the finding of the Trial Court, the Appellate Court must come to a conclusion that there is a cogent evidence before the Court and the same is ignored by the Trial Court while appreciating the same. But the same is not warranted in the case on hand. Each and every evidences of PW4, PW5 and PW2 were extracted by the Trial Court while giving the reasons and there was no any corroboration with regard to the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that prosecution has not proved the case. When such being the case, we do not find any ground to reverse the same in the absence of cogent and corroborative evidence. Hence the above point is answered accordingly. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9598-DB CRL.A No. 1037 of 2018 12. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE SN