Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2026:KHC:16886-DB

CRL.A No. 147 of 2021

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.147 OF 2021 (A)

BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
…APPELLANT

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)

AND:
1. RAJU @ RAJEEV KUMAR
S/O. VIKRAM SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
APARTMENTS AT SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 046
PERMANENT ADDRESS
LEGAL VILLAGE, BARSUYI THANA
KATTAHAR DISTRICT
BIHAR STATE.
2. SMT. JABEENA
W/O. ASHRAP ALI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEAR MESTHRIPALYA CHURCH
SRIRAMPURA
BENGALURU CITY.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT IN VIEW OF
ORDER DATED 4-7-2022)
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI N.S. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-1;
SMT. AISHWARYA S. HANCHATE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ANIRUDH CHAMUNDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12-3-2026 AUTHORIZED BY HCLSC))

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rashmi Patel
For the Respondents: N.S. Sampangiramaiah, Aishwarya S. Hanchate, Anirudh Chamunda

In an appeal against acquittal for POCSO and IPC offences, the prosecution must strictly establish the victim's minor age through statutory documentation or reliable medical age determination tests like ossification; failing this, and where evidence indicates consensual stay, the acquittal is maintained due to the double presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 343 and 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3 and Section 4 - Appeal against acquittal - Age determination of victim - Standard of proof - Prosecution failed to produce birth or school certificate - Medical opinion based solely on dental examination without radiological tests held insufficient - Prosecution must establish victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 18, 20, 21)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope in appeal against acquittal - Principle of double presumption of innocence - Interference permitted only when trial court's order is perverse or illegal - Evaluation of evidence regarding consent and lack of resistance - Evidence of voluntary stay for 12 days contradicts allegations of kidnapping and forcible confinement. (Paras 17, 24, 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped the minor victim, inducing her under threat to accompany him to an under-construction building where he confined her for 12 days and committed sexual assault. The trial court acquitted the accused, noting the lack of proof regarding the victim's age as a minor and the absence of evidence for forcible confinement, as the victim did not attempt to escape during her 12-day stay. The State appealed the acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the age determination by the Medical Officer based only on the absence of 3rd molar teeth, without further radiological/ossification tests, was unreliable in the absence of primary documents like birth or school certificates, as required under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The evidence of voluntary accompaniment and stay for 12 days negated claims of kidnapping and confinement. Appellate courts should not interfere with an acquittal unless compelling reasons exist.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established the victim's status as a minor and whether the charges of kidnapping and sexual assault were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the double presumption of innocence. Where the prosecution fails to establish the victim's minor age through statutory documentation or reliable medical evidence and fails to provide evidence of force or coercion, the acquittal must be upheld.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

***

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12-11-2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.409 OF 2014 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 343, 376 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3 READ WITH SECTION 4 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.11.2019 passed by the Court of the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Special C.C.No.409 of 2014, wherein the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 343, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, "POCSO Act").

2. We have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused, as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/defacto complainant. Perused the evidence and material on record.

3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2014 at about 05.30 a.m., accused kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant, aged about 15 years, by inducing her, from the house of Sagairaj near the Church of Mestripalya and wrongfully confined her for 12 days in an under-construction building at No.1-A, Davis Road and during the said period, committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim.

4. Charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 343, 376 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment, acquitted the accused, holding that the case of prosecution that the victim was kidnapped and confined by the accused cannot be believed and further, the age of the victim that she was a minor aged about 15 years as on the date of incident is also not proved.

6. The trial Court, having regard to the evidence and material adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the victim without any resistance, was residing with the accused for 12 days and no attempt was made by her to escape from that place and if really the accused had forcibly taken her to the building and confined her against her wish, she would have disclosed the same to others, even when the accused had introduced her as his wife to the owner of the building.

7. Insofar as the age of the victim is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the age of the victim from the medical report issued by the doctor cannot be treated as proof of her age and further, no birth certificate of the victim is produced by the prosecution.

8. The learned HCGP appearing for the State would vehemently contend that in this case the victim as well as her mother, the complainant, has supported the case of prosecution and their evidence is further corroborated by the medical evidence. She contended that in Ex.P2, issued by PW4, it is clearly stated that the victim is aged between 14 to 16 years and therefore, the prosecution has proved that the victim was a minor, hence, established the charges levelled against the accused.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant would also contend that the victim has supported the case of prosecution and her evidence clearly reveal that she was kidnapped by the accused under threat and confined in an under-construction building for 12 days. She contended that in the absence of any other documents regarding proof of age, the age has to be de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19917

Cases Referred (5)