Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
Dilip @ Papa S/O Ranganatha – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1895 of 2018 (C)
Decided on : 15-03-2023
IPC - Sections 363, 366, 376 POCSO Act - Section 4 The court referred to various sections of IPC and POCSO Act to establish the criminal liability of the accused. The court relied on the victim's testimony, medical examination report, and documentary evidence to establish the commission of offenses by the accused. The court also considered the age of the victim as a minor and the absence of consent as key factors in determining the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a minor, was kidnapped by accused Nos. 1 to 4 and taken to Dharmasthala where accused No. 1 forcibly married her. She was then taken to Bengaluru where accused No. 1 committed sexual intercourse on her against her will. The accused were convicted under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and material on record and found that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused kidnapped the minor victim and subjected her to sexual intercourse. The court also found that the victim's consent, even if present, does not absolve the accused of their criminal liability. The court rejected the defense's arguments of love affair and false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused, by kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor, have committed offenses punishable under IPC and POCSO Act. The court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentences imposed on the accused.
Result: The court confirmed the conviction of accused No. 1 for offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The court modified the sentence to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000. The court confirmed the conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 4 for offenses under Sections 363, 366A r/w 34 of IPC and modified the sentence to 6 months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. All sentences to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Court of I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru in Special Case (PCSOA) No.5/2015, whereby accused No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’, for short) and accused Nos.2 to 4 are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Accused Nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 114 r/w 363, 376 of IPC and Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri N.R.Krishnappa for accused No.1, Sri Umesh P.B. for accused Nos.2 to 4 and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.
4. The factual matrix Of the prosecution case are that the prosecutrix – PW.4 is a minor aged about 17 years. She is a resident of Bilekallahalli Village. She was studying in I PUC in BGS college, Chikkamagaluru. She used to travel in a bus from her village to her college to attend the classes. Accused No.1-Dilip is a resident of the same village. He had befriended the prosecutrix while she was traveling in the bus to her college. He was telling her that he is in love with her and he will marry her. On 17.11.2014 when PW.4 was proceeding to her college, near the Housing Board, Chikkamagaluru accused No.1 came in a goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-18-B-5540 along with accused Nos.2 to 4. He asked her to board the vehicle telling that he will drop her near the college. Thereafter, the accused instead of dropping her at the college, took her to Dharmasthala, wherein accused No.1 forcibly married her by tying thaali. From Dharmasthala accused No.1 took PW.4 to Bengaluru in a bus and took her to a house situated in Siddagunta Palya, Whitefield, wherein he committed sexual intercourse on her against her will. On 25.11.2014, he brought her back to Devanoor by train.
5. PW.1 is the father of the victim. He lodged a missing complaint as per Ex.P1 on 18.11.2014. The victim was traced on 25.11.2014 along with accused No.1 at Devanoor Railway Station. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and her medical examination was also conducted. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 4.
6. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in all got examined 17 witnesses and got marked 29 documents and MOs.1 to 8. The defence of the accused was one of total denial, however they did not chose to lead any evidence.
7. The learned Sessions Judge held accused No.1 guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and accused Nos.2 to 4 of the offence punishable under Section 363, 366A r/w 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 114 r/w 363, 376 of IPC and under Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012.
8. In the missing complaint-Ex.P1, lodged by PW1-father of the victim, he has stated that his daughter is studying in I PUC at BGS College at Chikkamagaluru and she was going to college in a bus. On 17.11.2014 at about 7.00 a.m., she went to the college but till 7.00 p.m., she did not return and therefore, he searched everywhere but she was not traced. He enquired with the Principal of the College and came to know that his daughter had not attended the classes. He enquired with his relatives but the whereabouts of his daughter was not known. Then, he came to know that accused No.1 was also not present in the village. Hence, he raised a suspicion that the said accused might have kidnapped his daughter.
9. On the basis of Ex.P1 lodged by PW1, PW6-PSI, registered a case and forwarded the FIR-Ex.P11 to the Court. He conducted spot mahaza
Reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution.
Point of Law – Kidnapping and abduction – Conviction - victim, who is found to be an unreliable witness - appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt
The prosecution evidence must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the unreliability of the victim's testimony requires corroboration from independent evidence in cases of sexual offences.
The court held that the testimony of a victim must be consistent and reliable to support a conviction; the inconsistency in the victim's statements led to the acquittal of the accused.
The court established that credible witness testimony is essential in sexual assault cases, particularly involving minors, and modified the sentence based on the nature of the crime and the age of th....
The appellate court upheld the victim's minority and the accused's guilt for kidnapping and sexual assault, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn ac....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
