SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
Ashok S. Kinagi, Rajesh Rai K., JJ.
Mallappa @ Malleshappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100207 of 2020
Decided On : 10-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.M. Gundawade
For the Respondents: Praveena Y. Devareddiyavar, Anuradha Deshapande

The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age as a minor, undermining the conviction for sexual offences under IPC and POCSO Act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 448, 450, 376(2)(i) & (n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 - Conviction of accused for sexual offences against a minor - The Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and fines for multiple offences, which were later challenged on appeal. (Paras 1, 4, 19)

(B) Consent and Age of Victim - The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age as a minor at the time of the incident, leading to the conclusion that the accused's actions did not constitute an offence under the IPC or POCSO Act. (Paras 16, 17)

(C) Evidence Assessment - The court found contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her father, undermining their credibility and the prosecution's case. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for multiple sexual offences against a minor victim, who alleged repeated assaults. The conviction was based on the victim's testimony and medical evidence, which later proved inconclusive regarding her age.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as a minor and that the evidence presented did not support the conviction.

Issues: The main issues were whether the judgment suffered from perversity or illegality and whether the conviction was justified based on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to prove the victim's age and the contradictions in testimonies led to the conclusion that the accused could not be convicted under the relevant laws.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Rai K., J.

1. This appeal filed by the convicted accused directed against the Judgment and order of sentence passed in Spl. S.C. Case No. 182/2017 dated 07.05.2020 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri, wherein, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused No. 1/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 450, 376 (2) (i) & (n) of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month for the offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC, sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months for the offences punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and also under Section 376 (2)(i) and 2(n) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act together with Section 6 of POCSO Act. The appellant is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he is subjected to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act and further he is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 03 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 12 of POCSO Act. Learned sessions judge also has order that all the sentences shall run concurrently with the life sentence.

2. The apothegm addressed by the prosecution are that, the victim (P.W.1) in this case being a minor and resident of Kaudikallapur village, was staying in Girls' Pre-Metric Hostel situated in Haveri and used to visit her house frequently. It is in this background, the appellant/accused No. 1 used to visit her house rottenly and was talking to her on the pretext that, he had vowed to marry her and on that context he used to behave with her cordially and further, it is the case of the prosecution that, accused No. 2, in criminal conspiracy with the accused No. 1, involved the victim to indulge in a telephonic conversation with the accused No. 1 through her cell phone in the absence of her family members at her house and on 20.11.2016 at about 12.00 p.m., when the victim was alone in her house, the appellant/accused No. 1 deceitfully barged into her house with an intention to commit offence. Further with the knowledge that, the victim was a minor, accused No. 1/appellant committed sexual assault on the victim. Subsequently, it was also the case of the prosecution that the appellant used to go to the house of victim by knowing about the fact that victim's being alone in the house, from the accused No. 2. He was committing frequent sexual assaults on the victim and thereafter used to threaten her with dire consequences as to she informing the same to any person. On the date of last alleged incident i.e., on 17.03.2017 at about 2.30 p.m., when the victim was alone in her house, the accused came to her house and committed forceful coitus as against the will of the victim. With the above background, a complaint at Ex.P.1 came to be lodged by the victim-girl before the respondent-police on 03.05.2017. Based on the said complaint, PW.8, the then PSI of the respondent-police, registered the FIR against the accused for the aforesaid offences as per Ex.P.19. Subsequently, P.W.9 the CPI who conducted the investigation by drawing spot mahazar and also recorded the statement of the victim-girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and thereafter, he arrested the accused and based on the voluntary statement of the accused, recovery is said to have been done at the instance of the accused and after obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authori

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top