Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Mohammad Nawaz, Rajesh Rai K., JJ.
Mallikarjun – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 200088/2018
Decided On : 23-08-2023
POCSO - Sexual Offences Against Minors - Sections 366, 376(2)(i) of IPC; Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012; Sections 3(i)(xv), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act - The court discussed the legal provisions concerning kidnapping and sexual assault under the IPC, the POCSO Act, and the SC/ST (PA) Act. It emphasized the necessity of proving the victim's age and the accused's intent in the context of the charges. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority and the accused's culpability beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was based on assumptions rather than solid evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl, who was a Scheduled Caste member. The prosecution claimed that the accused induced the victim to accompany him under the pretense of marriage and subsequently committed sexual acts against her will. The complaint was lodged several days after the alleged incident, raising questions about the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim and her parents, which undermined their credibility. It ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age and the accused's intent to commit the alleged crimes. The evidence presented did not support the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court's judgment was based on sound legal principles and evidence? 2. Whether the prosecution proved the charges under the relevant sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST (PA) Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as kidnapping and sexual assault. It emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence, especially regarding the victim's age and the accused's intent, which were not satisfactorily established in this case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT
RAJESH RAI K., J.
This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dtd. 11/6/2018 passed in Special Case (POCSO) No.2/2015 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, at Kalaburagi, wherein the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 366, 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 3(i)(xv) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act.
2. Thereby accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 366 of IPC and in default to pay fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i) of IPC and in default to pay fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1) (xv) of SC/ST (PA) Act and Sec.3(1)(z) of SC/ST (PA) Amendment Act, 2015 and in default to pay fine, he is directed undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused is also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act 2012 and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of POCSO Act 2012 and in default to pay fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Further directed that all the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case are that, the victim girl in this case is the daughter of the complainant Shantabai (PW1) and Choudappa (PW4). The appellant/accused used to live in the neighbouring vicinity of PW1 and PW4 and was acquainted with the victim. The victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and the accused belongs to Talawar caste which is not a Scheduled Caste. The victim used to go to M.M.M. High School, Afzalpur and used to ply every day from her village to Afzalpur. Such being the state of affair, on 2/10/2014 at about 12 noon when the victim was waiting for the bus to return to her village, the appellant/accused, kidnapped her by inducing that he would marry her and took her to Matolli village. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 3/10/2014, the appellant/accused committed sexual intercourse with the victim near the canal and on later dates took her to different places. On 11/10/2014 while the appellant/accused along with victim girl were waiting at Vaddanhalli Cross to return to their village, the Almel Police apprehended them.
4. Initially on 9/10/2014, the mother of the victim girl PW1 Shantabai lodged the complaint before Almel Police Station, as per Ex.P1 and pursuant to the said complaint, a criminal case came to be registered in Crime No.90/2014 as per Ex.P20 at Almel Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC R/w Sec. 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (PA) Act against the accused. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the victim girl was kidnapped from Afzalpur bus stand which is situated in Kalaburagi District, hence on the jurisdictional point, the matter was transferred to Afzalpur Police Station from Almel Police Station for investigation. In pursuance to such transfer, the Afzalpur Police re-registered the FIR in Crime No.260/2014 dtd. 28/10/2014 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC R/w Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PA) Act as per Ex.P16. After the arrest of accused, during the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer sought for
The prosecution must establish the victim's age and the accused's intent beyond reasonable doubt in cases of sexual offences, and mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient for ....
Rape – Consent of minor has no legal sanctity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the evidence supported the conviction for kidnapping, it was insufficient to establish the allegations of rape and sexual assault due to....
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....
The conviction in sexual offences requires credible and reliable evidence, especially regarding the victim's age, and reliance solely on secondary evidence without primary proof is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on documentary evidence, such as the victim's school certificate, and the testimony of the victim to determine the accused's guilt und....
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age as a minor, undermining the conviction for sexual offences under IPC and POCSO Act.
Prosecution under POCSO Act cannot be sustained where prosecution has failed to prove age of victim girl that she was minor at the time of alleged incident.
The age of the victim is crucial in sexual offense cases; if the victim is a minor, consent is legally irrelevant. Conviction under POCSO Act and IPC was affirmed based on credible witness testimonie....
Point of Law : Once the fact of victim being child is not proved, POCSO Act is not applicable.
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
