Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, K.S. HEMALEKHA, JJ.
Ganapati, S/o. Tukaram Metre - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Through Kalaburagi Grameen Police Station, Now Represented By The Additional State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 200244 of 2021 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)
Decided On : 09-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Rajesh Doddamani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Siddaling P. Patil, Addl. SPP, Sri. Sudheer Kulkarni, ADV.

Credibility of victim’s testimony is crucial in sexual assault cases, yet requires corroboration; the absence of medical evidence can challenge the reliability of claims, impacting conviction outcomes.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 and Section 7 punishable under Section 8 - Conviction for penetrative sexual assault on minor - Trial Court convicted the accused, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine, based on victim's testimony and corroborating evidence. Issues arose regarding contradictions and lack of medical evidence supporting allegations. (Paras 12, 27)

(B) Legal standard for conviction in sexual assault cases - Testimony of victim, while vital, must be credible and supported by corroborative evidence; uncorroborated testimonies may not suffice for conviction. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The accused, while working in the victim’s father's plastic factory, was alleged to have sexually assaulted a minor girl sent to deliver a lunch box. The victim's statement and medical evidence were contested by the defense, raising doubts over the occurrence of the alleged assault. (Paras 6, 30)

Findings of Court:
The original conviction was reconsidered, leading to a reduction in the severity of the charge to an assault under the POCSO Act, with an appropriate sentence imposed accordingly to ensure justice for the victim. (Paras 30, 31)

Issues: The court addressed whether the victim's testimony, amidst contradictions and lack of corroborating medical evidence, could still support a conviction for a lesser offence. (Paras 12, 29)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that, while the victim’s credibility was fundamental, the lack of medical corroboration, in context of the testimonies presented, warranted re-evaluation of the charge, leading to a conviction under a lesser statute of the POCSO Act. (Paras 28, 30)

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under IPC set aside and re-convicted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act with modified sentencing.

Table of Content
1. conviction for rape under ipc and pocso act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding reliability of victim's testimony and need for corroboration. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court's emphasis on corroboration of victim's testimony in sexual assault cases. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
4. final decision on conviction and sentencing. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.)

Assailing the judgment and order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Special Case (POCSO) No.60/2017, accused has preferred this appeal.

2. Vide impugned judgment, the Trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. The accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, in default of payment of the fine amount.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional SPP for the state and the learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2 – de-facto complainant.

5. Perused the evidence and materials on record.

6. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that, victim’s father was working in the plastic factory of one Arif Sheth situated at Kapanoor industrial area. On 24.09.2017, at about 9 A.M., he went to the factory for work. At about 2.30 P.M., victim girl, a minor aged about 16 years was sent by her mother to the factory to give lunch box to her father. At that time, the accused who was also working in the said factory committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on the victim and thereby committed the charged offences.

7. Law was set into motion by the victim’s mother. PW9 – PSI working at Kalaburagi Rural Police Station, on receiving her complaint/Ex.P5, registered a case and forwarded the FIR - Ex.P14 to the jurisdictional Court. The victim’s statement was recorded and she was sent for medical examination. The investigation was taken over by PW8 – CPI.

8. The accused was arrested and subjected to medical examination. The further statements of the victim and the complainant were recorded. Statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC by the learned Magistrate. The seized articles were sent for FSL examination. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

9. The charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

10. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW9 and Exs.P1 to P14. The accused denied all the incriminate evidence appeared against him, however did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf.

11. Learned Sessions Judge, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused for the charges leveled against him, as noted supra.

12. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the contradictions and infirmities appeared in the evidence of the victim and erroneously convicted the accused, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would contend that the father of the victim and one Shashikanth, who according to the prosecution rushed to the spot immediately, are not examined and complainant is a hearsay witness. He contended that medical examination report of the victim, as well as the FSL report does not corroborate the version of the victim and does not support the prosecution case and therefore, a reasonable doubt arises as to whether the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault, as claimed by the prosecution. He further contended that neither the evidence of the victim nor the evidence of PW2 or PW3 would clearly indicate or establish that there was penetrative sexual assault on the victim and therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. He