Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 4298
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
HANAMANTHA YANKAPPA JARAKUNTI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 100218 of 2021
The prosecution must establish the victim's age and the occurrence of forcible sexual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt, failing which the conviction cannot stand.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363 and 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4 and 6 - Conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault - Prosecution failed to establish the victim's age and the occurrence of forcible sexual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt - The absence of corroborative evidence and reliance on the victim's statement alone raised doubts about the prosecution's case. (Paras 1, 11, 16, 17)
(B) Evidence - The evidentiary value of school records and the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases - The court emphasized that without a birth certificate or medical examination, the victim's age determination is insufficient. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor. The victim's statement indicated she was forcibly taken and assaulted, but the defense argued the prosecution failed to prove her age and the occurrence of the crime. (Paras 1-8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not establish the victim's age or the occurrence of forcible sexual intercourse, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was erroneous. (Paras 16-20)
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of valid documentary evidence regarding the victim's age and the lack of corroborative evidence for the alleged crime led to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 16, 20)
Result: Criminal appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the accused is acquitted.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, wherein he has been convicted for offenses punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
2. The prosecution alleges that CW6/PW1, a student of PUC at Gavisiddeshwara College, Koppal, was residing with her parents and siblings in Hiremanapur village, Kushtagi Taluk.
3. On 09.10.2018, the complainant, as usual, left for his daily wage work while the victim remained at home with her mother. That evening, the family had dinner together at around 10:00 p.m. The complainant’s wife, Sunanda, and the victim sat outside the house conversing, while the other children went to sleep.
4. Around 10:45 p.m., when the complainant returned home after consuming betel leaf at the bus stand, he found his wife sitting outside. Upon inquiry, she informed him that the victim had gone to relieve herself but had not returned.
5. A missing complaint was filed, and during the course of the investigation, the accused and the victim were found at the accused’s brother’s house in Yapaladinni village.
6. The victim’s statement, recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., states that the accused forcibly took her to Yapaladinni, approximately 20 kilometers away, on foot. She further alleged that the accused committed sexual assault on her at his brother’s house between 09.11.2018 and 12.11.2018.
7. The prosecution contends that the accused, fully aware that the victim was a minor, abducted and sexually assaulted her.
8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15, exhibited documents as Exs.P1 to P34, and marked material objects as MOs.1 to 10. After framing points for consideration and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the medical evidence clearly establishes that there was no recent sexual intercourse. The alleged offense is said to have occurred between 09.11.2018 and 12.11.2018, while the victim was found on 14.11.2018. This, he contends, raises serious doubt as to whether the prosecution has proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Further, except for school records, the prosecution has not placed any substantive evidence to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. The victim was not subjected to ossification, radiological, or dental examination to determine her age, and the school certificate alone lacks evidentiary value. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash v. State , rep. by Inspector of Police.
10. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State submitted that the medical records at Exs.P19 to P21 clearly establish that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse, as they indicate rupture of the hymen. Additionally, the school leaving certificate at Exs.P10 and P11 establishes that the victim was 16 years, 3 months, and 25 days old as of the date of the incident. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, rightly recorded a finding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant interference.
11. After considering the arguments advanced by both parties and upon perusal of the trial court records, the only point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial
