IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1202 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MALAVALLI RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. DINESHA @ DINI @ DAYANANDA, by DEVIKA M S/O MANDYA KEMPAIAHNA NAGEGOWDA, Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, COURT OF KARNATAKA R/O AMRUTHESWARANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

2. LAKSHMI, D/O HENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O AMRUTHESWARANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.03.2024)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR A.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2025, SMT. P.V.KALPANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.07.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN SPL.C.NO.116/2015 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 8, 12 AND 18 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(xi) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. This appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’ for short), Section 376 of IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act and also Sections 8 and 18 of POCSO Act read with Section 511 of IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that one month prior to 05.10.2015 while the minor girl P.W.1 was going to school by walk, the accused has followed her, dragged her by holding her hands and teased and also made gestures towards her. On 20.09.2015 at about 1.00 p.m., at the cattle shed of Amrutheshwarahalli belonging to C.W.2 Eregowda, the accused has subjected her for sexual act, who is a minor and thereafter, has put her and her family members in fear of death. It is also the case of the prosecution that when P.W.1 was going to school by walk, the accused has wrongfully restrained her, teased, unrobbed and attempted to rape on her and thereby, committed an offence under Sections 8 and 18 of POCSO Act read with Section 511 of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and also relied upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to 14(a) and got marked M.O.1 to M.O.15. Ex.D.1 portion in the statement of P.W.1 are marked by the defence.

4. The Trial Court considered the evidence of P.W.1 victim girl, P.W.2 father of the victim girl, P.W.3 owner of cattle shed, P.W.4 brother of the victim girl, P.W.5 friend of the victim girl, P.W.6 doctor, who subjected the victim girl for medical examination, P.W.7 and P.W.8 witnesses to the spot mahazar, P.W.9 teacher, P.W.10 WPC, who recorded the statement of victim girl, P.W.11 and P.W.12 Investigating Officers and acquitted the accused.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the State.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State would vehemently contend that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material evidence adducted by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. Non-appreciation of evidence and material on record in the proper perspective has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The evidence of P.W.1 victim girl is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the a