Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 42660
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J
SRI. MUNIYAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 1707 / 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI
For the Respondents: SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP
The prosecution must establish the victim's age under the POCSO Act, and consent under a false promise does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 420, and 417 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for sexual offences against a minor - Convicted for 10 years under Section 376, 3 years under Section 420, and 10 years under Section 4 of POCSO Act, all to run concurrently. (Paras 2, 24)
(B) Age determination - The court emphasized the necessity of establishing the age of the victim as per Section 34 of the POCSO Act and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, highlighting the failure of prosecution to prove the victim's age adequately. (Paras 10, 12, 18)
(C) Consent and false promise - The court found that the elements of cheating under Section 420 were not established; instead, it held that the appellant should be convicted under Section 417 for cheating. (Paras 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of raping a minor under the false promise of marriage, resulting in pregnancy. The trial court convicted him based on the victim's testimony and other evidence, but the age of the victim was disputed.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 376 but modified the conviction under Section 420 to Section 417, reducing the sentence to the time already served.
Issues: The main issues included the determination of the victim's age, the applicability of the amended law, and whether the act constituted cheating under Section 420.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age according to the required legal standards, leading to the modification of the conviction.
Result: The appeal is allowed in part, with modifications to the conviction and sentence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant is convicted under multiple sections of ipc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense argues lack of proof regarding victim's age and consent. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court analyzes evidence regarding victim's age and applicability of ipc sections. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. court concludes on sentencing and conviction adjustments. (Para 8 , 19 , 23) |
| 5. final order modifies previous convictions and sentences. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2019 passed in S.C. No. 1495/2014 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru city.
2. Appellant - accused has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 and 420 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act . Appellant - accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 376 of IPC ; rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 4 20 of IPC ; rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act . The trial Court directed all the sentences to run concurrently.
3. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that, P.W.1 – victim girl was residing with her aunt – P.W.5 and used to go for construction work of newly constructed building in the year 2013 and she was aged about 16 years. When she used to go for construction work appellant - accused who was coming for building work came in acquaintance with P.W.2 and developed friendship with her. He used to take her, during lunch hour, to a shed in the same premises which was used to store the material. Appellant – accused, under the promise of marriage, committed sexual intercourse on P.W.2. Said incident of sexual intercourse occurred 8 months prior to the lodging of the complaint dated 27.08.2013 by P.W.2. As a result of the said act, P.W.2 became pregnant. Based on the complaint filed by P.W.2 on 27.08.2013, a case came to be registered in crime No. 263/2013 of Avalahalli Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 376 , 420 of IPC Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act). The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant - accused for offence punishable under Sections 376 , 420 of IPC , Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act. Said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged in this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and leaned HCGP for respondent – State.
5. Learned counsel for appellant - accused argued that the age of the victim girl has not been proved. Ex.P.22 is the study certificate issued by C.W.14. The author of the said study certificate – Ex.P.22, namely C.W.14 has not been examined. Age of the victim girl has not been established as required under Section 34 of the POCSO Act and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 (for short hereinafter referred to as `JJ Act’), as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofJarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in2013 (7) SCC 263. He further argued that the alleged act of sexual intercourse, considering the entire evidence of the prosecution, appears to be consensual. He contends that the ingredients of offence under Section 420 of IPC are not attracted to the case on hand and the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellant - accused for offence under Section 420 of IPC . He contends that the date of complaint is 27.08.2013 and the alleged act of sexual intercourse by the appellant - accused on the victim girl was 8 months prior to the date of complaint and considering the same, the offence might have taken place during December, 2012
