Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11166
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, MR VENKATESH NAIK, JJ
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
SYED ASGAR – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1924 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. RASHMI JADAV
For the Respondents: SRI MOHAMMED PASHA C.
The appellate court emphasizes the presumption of innocence in criminal law and that acquittals should not be disturbed without compelling evidence from the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1) and (3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, and 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(1) and 6 - Appeal against acquittal - Prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim as minor on the date of the alleged offence; the victim and her mother recanted their statements in cross-examination, asserting that she was of age and had not been kidnapped or assaulted - The evidence of key witnesses lacked credibility, leading the Special Court to properly acquit the accused based on the presumption of innocence. (Paras 12, 35, and 40)
(B) Acquittal - The appellate court must respect the trial court's findings unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence - The appellant must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; mere assumptions cannot substitute for solid evidence. (Paras 9, 13, and 28)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped a 16-year-old girl under the pretense of marriage and committed rape after taking her to Hyderabad. The victim's age was contested, with witness testimony indicating she was major on the date of the incident. The defense established that both the victim and her mother later denied the allegations.
Findings of Court:
The acquittal was upheld due to the lack of reliable evidence establishing the victim's age as minor and credible witness support for the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully proved the victim's age and that a kidnapping and sexual assault occurred.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the judgment of acquittal, enforcing the presumption of innocence and emphasizing the high burden of proof required in criminal cases.
Result: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's case and charges outlined. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. appellate court's perspective on acquittal. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. analysis of witness credibility regarding minor status. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. conflicting evidence on victim's age and admissibility. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. witness statements contradict prosecution's case. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 7. doubts on prosecution's evidence quality. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 8. appeal dismissed; court upholds acquittal. (Para 39 , 40) |
J UDGMENT
The appellant-State has filed this appeal under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 30-4-2018 passed by the learned Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Special Court") in Special Criminal Case No.575 of 2014 acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC") and Section 5 (l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the POCSO Act").
2. Summary of the case of the prosecution is that the accused and the victim girl (PW2/CW2) were known to each other. At the relevant point of time, the victim girl was minor in her age and she was aged about 16 years. On the date 14-10-2014 at about 4:00 p.m., the accused in the guise of loving and marrying the victim girl, enticed her to go along with him from near her house at No.16, 11th 'A' Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, Bengaluru. He took her to Hyderabad. Knowing that she was minor in her age, the accused committed repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault (rape upon her). In the meantime, PW1/CW1, the mother of the alleged victim girl, had lodged a complaint before the complainant-Police in Crime No.292 of 2014 stating that her daughter, who was minor in her age, was found missing from their house from the date 14-10-2014 and she had suspected the hands of the accused in her daughter having found missing. Accordingly, the said complaint was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, according to the prosecution, both the victim girl and the accused were traced at Hyderabad and they were brought back to Bengaluru. The victim girl narrated before the Investigating Officer that she was subjected to repetitive penetrative sexual assault by the accused. Both the accused and the alleged minor girl were subjected to medical examination by the Doctor. Having claimed that, during the course of investigation, he has collected sufficient material to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the complainant-Police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 5 (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. After perusing the material placed before it and hearing both side, the Special Court framed a charge as against respondent No.1/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 5 (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the trial was held, wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all ten witnesses from PW1 to PW10, got produced and marked documents from Exs.P1 to P12. From the accused’s side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked as exhibits.
4. After hearing both side, the learned Special Court, by its judgment dated 30-4-2018, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 5 (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Challenging the same, the appellant-State has preferred the present app
