IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2015 (A)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE-571511.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.)

AND:

BEERESHA S/O CHIKKAVENKATAIAH

31 YEARS, R/O RAJIVAGANDHIPURA, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571511 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by (BY SRI. D N MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT.)

LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.13/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT AT RAMANAGARA THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 354 OF IPC AND SEC. 8 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22^nd December, 2014 passed in Spl.C.C. No.13 of 2014 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (for short “the trial Court”.)

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to this appeal are that Ramanagara Rural Police laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05^th November, 2013 around 3.30 pm, at Rajeevgandhipura within the limits of Ramanagara Rural Police Station, CW2-victim, aged five and a half years who was playing, was taken by the accused under the guise of playing with her. Further, he took her to the first floor of the house of CW10 with an intention to sexually harass her, made her to remove clothes, kissed her cheeks, fondled over the chest and then attempted to do sexual activity with her, thereby committed an offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354 of IPC.

5. After hearing on charges, charges were framed, same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, ten witnesses are examined as PWs1 to 10, 11 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Having heard on both sides, the trial court acquitted the accused. Assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

8. Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is illegal and contrary to law and facts. He would submit that PW1 is the complainant and the mother of the victim child. She has clearly stated regarding the incident, as narrated to her. She has also explained regarding the delay in lodging the complaint. PW2-victim child, has also deposed as to the act committed by the accused. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 is also corroborated with the evidence of PW3. The trial Court has not appreciated the facts in accordance with law. On these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent remain absent.

Argument on behalf of the respondent is taken as nil.

10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for consideration:

1) Whether the State has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?

2) What order?

Regarding Point No.1:

11. I have examined the materials placed before the Court. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer to the dictum of Hon'ble Su