KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Ashok S. Kinagi and Rajesh Rai K., JJ.
Mallappa @ Malleshappa S/o. Siddappa Shirasangi – Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka, by State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100207 of 2020
Decided on 10.1.2024
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 448, 450, 376 (2) (i) & (n) – House trespass and frequent sexual assaults on minor girl – Conviction and sentence – There is contradiction in respect of age of victim girl on Medical Evidence and School Certificate – Prosecution has failed to produce Birth Certificate of victim-girl and original Transfer Certificate or SSLC Marks Card – Prosecution has also failed to conduct Ossification Test of victim-girl to determine her age – If victim girl was considered to be of 16 years of age as per report issued by Doctor, then two years margin can be extended on either side – Prosecution has failed to produce Birth Certificate or SSLC Marks Card and prosecution has also failed to examine Radiologist or Dentist – Prosecution has failed to prove age of victim girl that she was minor at the time of alleged incident – Independent witness partly turned hostile to prosecution case – Doctor opined that there was no recent sexual act – There are no other injuries found on body of victim-girl – Appellant acquitted from all charges. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
Judgment
Rajesh Rai K., J.—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 oftenly 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 authorities, P.W.10 la
K.P. Thimmappa Gowda vs. State of Karnataka
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 prosecution failed to prove the victim's age as a minor, undermining the conviction for sexual offences under IPC and POCSO Act.
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 court held that discrepancies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborating evidence created reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
In cases of sexual offences, the prosecution must establish the age of the victim convincingly, as ambiguous evidence cannot sustain a conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the victim's age to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act and the evidentiary value of the School Leaving Certificate ....
Victim testimony in sexual assault cases must be credible and consistent; considerable contradictions undermine prosecution's case under the POCSO Act.
Point of law: There can be no iota of doubt that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable, a conviction can be based. However, in the case on hand, the testimony ....
(1) Entry of date of birth, as recorded in School Register, is relevant and admissible in evidence under Section 35 of Evidence Act.(2) Mere fact that wisdom tooth have not erupted is not of great im....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.