- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1077 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH, S/O. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BOODIPURA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.S.SURESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HOLALKERE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DR. ABMEDKAR VEEDHI, HIGH COURT UNIT, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. LAKSHMAKKA, W/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BOODIPURA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.01.2021) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH N.S., ADVOCATE APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 29.06.2017 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30.06.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN SPL.C.NO.6/2016 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(i) AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT. 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) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2, amicus curiae. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the accused being the cousin brother of the victim P.W.1, on 26.12.2015, took the victim and her brother to the groundnut land and slept in the land and even though the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 accused knows that she is a minor, when the brother of the victim was sound sleep, subjected P.W.1 for sexual act closing her mouth and also caused the life threat. Hence, invoked the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and 506 of IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) against the accused. 3. Based on the complaint given by the mother of the victim, the police investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet and the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.18 and also relied upon the documentary evidence at Exs.P.1 to 25(a) and got marked the material objects M.O.1 to M.O.10. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 victim, P.W.2 mother of the victim and also the evidence of sister of P.W.6, father of the victim and brother of the victim as P.W.5 to P.W.7. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of P.W.9 doctor, who conducted the ossification test and also the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 evidence of doctor P.W.18, who examined the victim and noticed that her hymen was ruptured and there was a tear and sutured the injuries. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of P.W.13 FSL expert and his opinion at Ex.P.19 is clear that blood stains were found on the clothes belonging to the accused as well as the victim girl and seminal stain was found in article No.8 i.e., the innerwear of the accused. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that the accused only subjected the victim girl for sexual act as against her will and hence, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life i.e., imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life with fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. In default of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that P.W.2 and P.W.5 to P.W.7 are the family members of the victim and they are the interested witnesses. The learned counsel would contend that the time of the incident is 11.00 p.m., but the victim came to the house at around 2.00 a.m. She did not reveal anything either to her brother, who had accompanied her along with the accused, or the mother of the victim. It is the case of the prosecution that when the mother P.W.2 questioned about the blood stains on the cloth, then only she revealed the same and thereafter, she has taken the victim girl to the hospital. The learned counsel would contend that the doctor's opinion is that she is below the age of 18 years, but it is claimed that she was aged about 12 years and the author of the document is not examined. There was no any screaming when the incident took place and there were no any external - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 injuries as per the medical records. There were no seminal stains on the clothes of the victim and seminal stains were found only on the clothes of the accused. On the clothes of the accused, blood of ‘O’ group was found and there is no any test regarding whether the same is the blood group of the victim. The learned counsel would submit that when the incident was taken place in the groundnut land, there is no any such proof and the witnesses are relative witnesses. The learned counsel would submit that the victim is married now and having two children. The parents of the accused are aged about 80 to 85 years and they are not having any house. The accused was 20 years as on the date of the alleged incident and he is in jail from last 10 years and he was arrested on 27.12.2015 and he has already completed sufficient sentence of more than 10 years and hence, this Court has to take note of the said factors into consideration and acquit the accused. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State would vehemently contend that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 to P.W.7, who are the members of the family is consistent that accused - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 only took the victim on the incident date i.e., on 26.12.2015 and she came back in the midnight. On enquiry, she revealed that being afraid, she came back. On noticing the blood stains on her cloth, she was taken to the hospital and was subjected to medical examination. The doctor confirmed that she was subjected to sexual act and noticed the injuries on her private part i.e., hymen was not intact and the same was ruptured and sutures were also put. Though there were no external injuries, FSL report is very clear that seminal stains as well as the blood stains were found on the clothes of the accused as well as blood stains were found on the clothes of P.W.1. Considering all these materials, the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused and sentenced him and no case is made out to reverse the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 i.e., amicus curia reiterates the grounds, which have been urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 8. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record and on re-appreciation of the material available on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and whether the prosecution proves the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether it requires interference? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 9. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the charges levelled against the accused is that he took the victim girl to a lonely place along with the brother of the victim, who is a minor and made the brother to take sound sleep and then committed the sexual act on the victim against her will and closed her mouth not to scream at the spot. It is also the case that when P.W.1 insisted to take her back to the house, he brought her brother and her near the house and then on the next day, having noticed the blood stains on the clothes of the victim, the mother took her to the hospital and found - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 that she was subjected to sexual act. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 victim and also the evidence of P.W.2 mother, who took the victim to the hospital on the very next day. P.W.5 is the sister of P.W.6. P.W.6 is the father of the victim and P.W.7 is the brother of the victim and their evidence is consistent with regard to the incident which has been narrated by P.W.1. 10. The Court has to look into the evidence of other witnesses. P.W.8 doctor says that the accused is capable to commit the offence alleged against him. The other evidence of the prosecution is P.W.9 doctor, who conducted the ossification test. It is important to note that the age of the victim was 12 years as on the date of the incident, but her date of birth is 11.04.2005 and the incident was taken place on 26.12.2015 and she was aged about 10½ years and not 12 years. The ossification test conducted by P.W.9 doctor also supports the case of the prosecution i.e., below the age of 18 years. Even though margin was given, the same does not come to the aid of the accused. P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.12 are the PC, Head Constable and PSI, who recorded the statement of the victim. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. The evidence of the doctor P.W.18 is very clear that the victim was brought to the hospital and she conducted the medical examination and issued the certificate in terms of Ex.P.24. On perusal of Ex.P.24, it is clear that no external injuries seen over the breasts. However, central perineal tear present and the same was sutured and hymen was ruptured. The opinion as per Ex.P.20 is clear that seminal stains were not detected in item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Skin tissue was not detected on item No.6 and spermatozoa was not detected on item No.2. But clinical expert opined that sexual intercourse or an act similar to that of sexual intercourse. The Court also has to take note of the FSL report Ex.P.19, which clearly discloses that seminal stains were found on the innerwear of the accused i.e., item No. 8. Seminal stains were not detected on item Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10. However, item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 were stained with human blood of ‘O’ group blood and these are the clothes belonging to both the accused as well as the victim. The medical and FSL reports support the case of the prosecution with regard to subjecting her for sexual act. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 11. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of P.W.17 nurse, who treated the victim at the first instance and her evidence also supports the case of the prosecution and nothing is elicited from the mouth of the FSL witness as well as the doctor and scientific examination report also goes against the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the prosecution, the incident was taken place at 11.00 p.m., but the fact is that the victim was with her brother, who is also a minor and only on insistence, the accused brought her back along with her brother and once again he took her brother along with him. The victim was subjected to medical examination on the very next day and blood stains were found on the clothes of both the victim and the accused and FSL report goes against the accused. No doubt, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no proof of land wherein groundnut was grown and took the victim along with him. But the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 to P.W.7 is consistent that the accused had taken the victim and the brother of the victim in the night in a motorcycle. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he brought her back in the motorcycle. There was no any discrepancies in the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 evidence of P.W.1, except the place of dropping of the victim and there is no any evidence to comes to a other conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence as well as doctor's medical evidence and also the FSL evidence. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the parents of the accused are aged about 80 to 85 years and also they are not having house. The same cannot be a factor while considering the appeal after post-facto conviction. No doubt, it is the case of the accused that he was arrested on 27.12.2015 and he was aged about 20 years and victim was aged about 12 years as on the date of the incident. The Court has to take note of the fact that he is none other than the cousin brother of the victim. It is the duty of the accused, who happens to be the cousin brother of the victim, to take care of the victim and instead of that, he himself has subjected her for sexual act. He might have been a guardian to the victim, but instead of that he acted as against the interest of the minor girl, who happens to be the cousin sister. Hence, the question of showing any leniency to the accused does not arise. The - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of KIRAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2863, has categorically held that imposing of life sentence till natural death vests with the Supreme Court and High Court i.e., Constitutional Courts and not the District Court. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration and considering the fact that the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life till natural death of the accused, who happens to be aged about 20 years as on the date of the incident, it is appropriate to modify the judgment of the Trial Court with regard to the sentence is concerned as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was an aggravated sentence considering the factual aspects of the case. Except this intervention of this Court, the material appreciated by the Trial Court does not require any interference and hence, we answer the point in the negative. Having given our anxious consideration to the material available on record, not a case for interference with regard to the conviction and only it requires modification of the sentence. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2744-DB CRL.A No. 1077 of 2020 Point No.(ii): 13. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and 506 of IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act is confirmed. (iii) The sentence is modified as life imprisonment instead of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the accused. The Registry is directed to pay the fee of Rs.5,000/- to the amicus curiae, who represents on behalf of respondent No.2. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25