IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100215 OF 2021 (A)

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, ANKOLA POLICE STATION, KARWAR, DISTRICT. UTTARA KANNADA, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

AND:

MANIKANT S/O. DURGAYYA KHARVI, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. FISHING, R/O. MADHYAKHARVIWADA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR KARWAR, PIN CODE- 581301.

LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High …RESPONDENT Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30/012/2019 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN SPECIAL CASE.NO.28/2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30/12/2019 PASSED BY SPECIAL JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN SPECIAL CASE.NO.28/2016 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 363, 354 OF IPC AND SEC. 8 OF POCSO ACT 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant. The respondent has been served and is unrepresented.

2. The State has preferred the present appeal challenging the order acquittal of the respondent in Special Case No. 28/2016 on the file of the Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows:

Sri.Ramdas Seetharam Kharvi lodged a complaint with the Ankola Police alleging that his daughter, the victim girl, had been kidnapped by the respondent and that he had later misbehaved with her by touching her body parts. It is further revealed from the averments in the complaint that the victim was in the company of the accused for a period of two days. After the complaint was received, they were traced and rescued. Victim girl was brought back to her house. The complainant sought appropriate action against the respondent.

4. The police, after registering the case, apprehended the accused and conducted a detailed investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO’).

5. Upon taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, the learned Special Judge secured the presence of the accused and framed charges for the said offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried;

therefore, the trial was conducted.

6. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and the victim girl was examined as PW-2. In all, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, namely, Ramdas Seetaram Kharvi, Suresh Hari Banavalikar, Hirayi Ramdas Kharvi, Chetan Thaku Kharvi, Sandeep Honnappa Naik, Varadraj Gajanan Naik, Vidya Omu Naik, Sunil Srikant Banavali, Dr. Subray Taku Ager, Dr. Anupama, Siddram Pujari, Arunkumar Kolur, and Lalita Bhimappa Rajapooth, as PW-1 to PW-15.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, seventeen documents were placed on record and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-17, which include the complaint, spot panchanama, statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., seizure panchanama, statements of witnesses, medical examination report, study certificate of the victim girl to establish her age, examination report, and the first information report.

8. Upon completion of the recording of evidence, the learned Trial Judge recorded the statement of the accused under