Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14737
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M G UMA, J
MR. CHETHAN .D – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1466 OF 2024 (C) | SPL.C.C.NO.1364/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.T. Nanaiah, Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi
For the Respondents: Rashmi Jadhav
The court confirmed the conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act while overturning the convictions under Sections 4 and 6, emphasizing the necessity of substantiated evidence.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 6, and 8 - Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Accused convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and fines under Sections 4 and 6, while the conviction under Section 8 is upheld - The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused through consistent testimonies and medical evidence supporting the victim's claims. (Paras 1, 6, 14, 15)
(B) Legal Principles - The court established that the presumption under Section 30 of the Act applies when the prosecution successfully proves the facts, shifting the burden of proof to the accused. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused, a neighbor, was convicted for sexually assaulting a 3-year-old girl, with evidence including medical reports indicating digital interference. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The conviction for Sections 4 and 6 was set aside, but the conviction under Section 8 was confirmed based on the evidence presented. (Paras 14, 15)
Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence for the charges under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act. (Paras 5, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while the evidence supported a conviction for Section 8, the charges under Sections 4 and 6 were not substantiated by the evidence. (Paras 14, 15)
Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction under Sections 4 and 6 set aside, conviction under Section 8 upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's decision on convictions. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the crime and evidence presented. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legal reasoning regarding the burden of proof. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. final rulings and outcomes. (Para 15) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
The accused in Special Case No.1364 of 2021 on the file of the learned FTSC-I, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2024 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4 , 6 and 8 of POCSO Act and sentencing to undergo imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act; to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, the accused being the neighbor of victim girl, took the victim aged 3 years to his room on 07.07.2021 at 6.00 p.m. and inserted his finger on her vagina and thereby committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Sections 4 , 6 and 8 of POCSO Act. The mother of the victim girl lodged the first information as per Ex.P1. The victim was subjected to examination by the lady doctor - PW9 who gave the medical report as per Ex.P6 suggesting that there was a scratch mark in the vagina of the victim girl suggesting digital interference. Thus, the investigation was completed and the charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences.
3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P1 to P20 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration of all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4 , 6 and 8 of POCSO Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri M T Nanaiah, learned senior advocate for Sri Prabhugoud B Tumbigi, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit him for the charges leveled against him?"
My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused was neighbor of PW1-the mother of the victim girl. This fact is not in dispute. It is further contention of the prosecution that the accused taking advantage of his position as a neighbor took the little girl aged 3 years to his room and inserted his finger into her vagina. The child came crying and on enquiry by PW1 - the mother, the child has stated that she is experiencing burning sensation inside the vagina. The mother took her to local doctor who ignored this fact by stating that she must have experiencing irritation due to heat in the body. While the child persistently stated that she is experiencing irritation due to the act of the accused, the informant lodged the first information as per Ex.P1. The FIR came to be registered and the child was subjected to medical examination by PW9 who on examination, found the scratch mark in the vagina and issued c
