1. Appeal against acquittal for kidnapping, rape, and POCSO offences of a minor, where victim became pregnant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, B.PRAMOD, JJ.
Akbar Ali Khan S/O. Late Mahamood Khan
Versus
State Of Karnataka BY Maddur P.S.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1584 OF 2025 (A)
Decided on : 03-09-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI CHENNAPPA ERAPPA, H.C.G.P., SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE
For the Appellant :SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI CHENNAPPA ERAPPA, H.C.G.P., SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE
Consent of a minor under 18 is legally irrelevant in sexual offense cases. Where age is established by statutory documents and DNA evidence proves biological parentage, acquittal based on "consensual love" or testimonial contradictions is perverse and warrants reversal by the appellate court.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - Sections 2(d), 6 and 42A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 53-A - Determination of age of victim - Birth Certificate and academic marks card are valid documents for age determination - If the victim is a child as defined under the POCSO Act, the issue of consent is legally irrelevant - DNA reports establishing biological parentage, when collected in accordance with law and in open court, constitute strong evidence of the commission of the offence - The trial court’s failure to consider a DNA report and the legal irrelevance of a minor's consent renders the judgment of acquittal perverse. (Paras 14, 16, 17, 21)
(B) Appeal against Acquittal - To reverse an order of acquittal, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity, or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court - If the view of the trial court is legally plausible, it should not be interfered with, but if it is perverse or based on selective appreciation of evidence, interference is justified. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The accused befriended a minor girl through social media, kidnapped her, and subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse, which resulted in pregnancy. The trial court, despite finding the victim to be a minor based on her birth certificate and academic records, acquitted the accused on the grounds that the victim had consented and there were contradictions in her testimony. The de facto complainant appealed against the acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the victim's age was conclusively proved as 16 years, making her a "child" under the POCSO Act. The DNA report established that the accused was the biological father of the fetus. The court held that for a minor, consent is not a defense to the charge of rape or sexual assault.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the established age of the victim and DNA evidence proving paternity, and whether the acquittal was based on a perverse appreciation of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Consent of a girl below the age of 18 is legally nonexistent and irrelevant for the offense of rape. When scientific evidence (DNA) and documentary evidence (age proof) clearly establish the guilt of the accused, the trial court cannot acquit the accused based on claims of consensual love or minor contradictions in the victim's testimony. Such an acquittal is perverse and represents a miscarriage of justice.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of acquittal set aside; accused convicted under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to dignity and reproductive autonomy (Para 19)
-
fundamental rights
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argues age proved; consent irrelevant for minor. Respondent contends victim consented, evidence contradictory, and procedural lapses. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Age of victim proved by birth certificate. DNA confirms accused as biological father. Consent of minor legally irrelevant. Trial court's acquittal perverse. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
4. A minor's consent is no defence to rape or POCSO offences; DNA evidence coupled with minor's age establishes guilt conclusively. (Para 15 , 16 , 21 , 24 , 30 )
5. Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; accused convicted under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act; sentenced to 20 years. (Para 36 )
6. Can a minor's consent be a valid defence to a charge of rape or penetrative sexual assault under POCSO?
No. Sexual intercourse with a person below 18 years is rape regardless of consent, even within marriage. Consent of a minor is legally irrelevant. (Para 16 , 30 )
7. What documents are sufficient to prove the age of a victim under the POCSO Act?
Birth certificate (Ex.P54) and SSLC marks card showing same date of birth are sufficient. An ossification test is not required if such documents exist. (Para 14 , 15 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
8. Can a DNA report be relied upon when the author is not examined and the collection procedure is challenged?
Yes, if the genuineness of the document is not disputed, it can be read under Section 294 Cr.P.C. without proof of signature. Chain of custody established. (Para 17 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
9. What is the standard of review in an appeal against acquittal under criminal law?
The appellate court must demonstrate illegality, perversity, or error of law/fact in the trial court's decision. A legally plausible view for the accused must ordinarily be followed. (Para 13 )
10. Is a hearing on sentence required when the statute prescribes a minimum mandatory sentence?
No, if the statute prescribes a minimum sentence, no separate hearing on sentence is needed. The court can directly impose the minimum punishment. (Para 32 , 35 )
JUDGMENT :
B.PRAMOD, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the de facto complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.07.2025 in SPl. C. No. 47/2022, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, at Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act" for short) and prays for conviction and sentence.
2. Heard Sri. Tigadi Veeranna Gadigeppa, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri. Chennappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 – State; and Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 – accused.
3. The factual matrix of the prosecution is that, prior to 2021, at Teachers Colony of Maddur, the accused befriended the victim, who was aged about 16 years, through Facebook and repeatedly forced her into personal interaction in order to make her love him. In the month of May 2021, the accused kidnapped the victim in a car bearing No. KA-09-C-1590, without the knowledge or consent of her parents, in order to seduce her into illicit sexual intercourse. After kidnapping the victim, the accused took her to the house of CW-4 at Antharahalli Village and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Again, on separate days in the months of November and December 2021, and on 14.12.2021, the accused, by enticing the victim, took her to the houses of CWs.4 and 5 respectively and had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. Consequent to this, she became pregnant. 4. Based on the complaint, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 14 and got 54 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P54. In support of the defence, the accused got documents marked as Exhibits D1 to D5 – photographs – through cross-examination of PW-1. The accused was subjected to 313 Cr.P.c., statement and he has not laid any defence evidence. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the age of the victim is 16 years and, in support of the said finding, has noted Exhibit P54 – Birth Certificate of the victim – and Exhibit P20 – SSLC marks card – both showing the date of birth of the victim as 15.09.2005. Further, the trial court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 354(b), 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
5. Against this, the appellant – de facto complainant – has filed the present appeal, contending that the age of the victim has been proved as contemplated under the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012, and that the consent of the victim does not arise when the victim is a minor girl.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the accused is a habitual offender involved in five cases. In one of these cases, Crime No. 266/2017, a case was registered under Sections 354(a)(1), 506, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that Exhibit P52, the DNA test report, shows that the accused is the biological father and the victim is the biological mother of the product of conception. The doctor has opined that the victim has been used for sexual intercourse. The statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the oral evidence, and Exhibit P1 corroborate that the accused has committed the said offences. He prays that the appeal may be allowed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – accused contends that the victim, in her cross- examination, has clearly stated that she met the accused through Facebook by posing different names and b
