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

2022 Supreme(Kar) 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.Somashekar, C M Joshi, JJ.
State of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
Rangaswamy @ Manja and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1925 of 2016
Decided On : 28-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Sri. Abhijith K.S. - HCGP.
For the Respondent:Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha., Advocate

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366A, 344, 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(1) - Appeal against acquittal - State appeals to set aside the acquittal of the accused for alleged kidnapping and sexual assault on a minor - The victim, born on 30.05.1997, denies knowledge of the accused and the allegations of abduction and sexual assault, rendering the prosecution's case unproven. (Paras 1, 7, 23, 34)

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; mere presumption under POCSO is rebuttable and requires corroboration - The trial court granted benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of material evidence to support the allegations. (Paras 11, 34)

(C) Witness credibility - Testimonies of key witnesses were inconsistent and contradictory, with several witnesses treated as hostile during cross-examinations, failing to substantiate the prosecution's claims. (Paras 15, 23, 32)

(D) Final Judgment - Appeal rejected; trial court's acquittal confirmed due to insufficient evidence.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 25 , 26)
2. court's analysis and observations (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 32)
3. arguments presented by the state (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 34)
4. conclusion of the appeal (Para 27)
5. legal reasoning behind the acquittal (Para 28)

JUDGMENT :

K.Somashekar, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, in S.C.No.65/2014 dated 02.06.2016 acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 366A, 344, 376 of the IPC, 1980 and for offences under Section 5 (j)(ii) and 5(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC. This appeal has been filed by the State seeking to set-aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and to consequently to convict the accused / Respondent No.1 herein for the offences leveled against him.

2. Heard the learned HCGP Shri Abhijith K.S. for the appellant / State and the learned counsel Shri Syed Akbar Pasha for Respondent No.1 / accused. Respondent No.2 / complainant though served, remains absent and unrepresented. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.65/2014 consisting the evidence of PW-1 to PW-19 and several documents which were got marked at Exhibits P1 to P26.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

    It transpires from the case of the prosecution that the complainant / Nagappa son of Kariyappa none other than the father of the victim, had filed a complaint as per Exhibit P1 stating that his daughter / victim whose date of birth was 30.05.1997 and who had studied upto 7th Std and thereafter discontinued her studies, was residing with her parents. During January 2014, the complainant / PW-1 along with his wife and daughter had been to Chikkallur fair of Kollegal Taluk and they had stayed there. At that time, one Manja son of Mahadevaiah of Utthuvalli village had also come for the said fair and he had gone to the complainant and introduced himself as belonging to Lingayath community of Madalavadi and complainant believed the words of said Manja /accused and talked with him and he also supplied food to him and at that time the accused also befriended the daughter of complainant. It is further averred that on 02.03.2014, the complainant and his wife had gone to attend Aradhana of Padaguru Mutt by leaving their daughter alone in the house. But when they came back in the evening from the said Aradhana function of Padaguru Mutt, they found their daughter missing. The complainant though enquired about his daughter's whereabouts with his neighbourers, they did not know anything. The daughter of the complainant though had a mobile phone, it was stated that the complainant was not aware of its number and hence had enquired his relatives and others, but his daughter was not traced and in the meantime the wife of the complainant was not keeping well. He had not filed any missing complaint till then.

4. It is further averred that on 20.05.2014, the wife of younger brother of complainant by name Dharmavathi had been to the fair of Chamarajanagar and when Dharmavathi was proceeding in an autorickshaw in Utthuvalli village, she saw the victim / daughter of complainant who had closed her face with the pallu of her saree and she was proceeding with one boy. The said Dharmavathi had intimated the said fact to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant went to Utthuvalli village and searched for his daughter but she was not traced. However, he came to know from the residents of Utthuvalli that Manja, son of Mahadevaiah had brought one girl stating that he had married her. But he was not there in the house and they were not aware as to where he had gone. Coming to know of the same, the complainant had requested the police to trace his daughter and to take action against the accused. He lodged the complaint on 06.07.2014 at about 11.30am with the PSI, Terekanambi Polic

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