High Court of Karnataka Upholds Acquittal in POCSO and IPC Case Due to Lack of Cogent Evidence - 2026-01-29

Karnataka High Court Rejects State Appeal, Upholding Acquittal in POCSO Case

In a significant dismissal, the High Court of Karnataka has upheld a trial court’s judgment of acquittal for two individuals accused of serious offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. A division bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies, ultimately ruling that the allegations lacked the necessary legal weight to stand.

The Backdrop: A Case of Disputed Allegations

The case originated from a complaint filed at the Women Police Station in Udupi, alleging that in April 2022, the victim was subjected to harassment and sexual assault by two separate individuals. The prosecution contended that the victim, a minor at the time, was coerced by the accused through phone contacts and physical inducements, leading to incidents at a local hotel and a secluded residence.

The trial court, after presiding over the testimony of 24 witnesses and reviewing extensive documentation, arrived at a verdict of acquittal. The state subsequently appealed this decision, arguing that the lower court had failed to properly evaluate evidence from witnesses and technical materials, such as CCTV footage.

The Core Conflict: Age and Credibility

The crux of the appellate challenge lay in two primary areas: the determination of the victim's age and the reliability of her testimony.

Regarding age, the High Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority status with conclusive evidence beyond the medical report, which was itself deemed insufficient without the support of an ossification test. More damaging to the state’s appeal was the victim's own admission under cross-examination that she was 18 years of age at the time of the incident, further muddying the applicability of the POCSO Act.

Furthermore, the court scrutinized the alleged sexual assault. The bench noted that in her statement under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C., the victim made no mention of sexual intercourse. This omission, coupled with the absence of medical evidence corroborating the allegations, rendered the prosecution's narrative unreliable.

Key Observations from the Court

The bench’s ruling highlighted the necessity for cogent evidence, particularly in sensitive cases involving minors. The court remarked:

• "In a case where there is medical evidence, there must be an ossification test and the same is not done."
• "When P.W.1 herself has not stated anything about subjecting her for forcible sexual act, the evidence of P.W.2 will not come to the aid of the prosecution and there is no medical evidence before the Court."
• "The evidence of P.W.1-victim girl is inconsistent and the same is not trustworthy... When all these materials are considered by the Trial Court, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal."

Final Verdict: The Burden of Proof

In its final order, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, emphasizing that in the absence of consistent, trustworthy testimony and supporting forensic data, the court cannot sustain convictions for grave offences.

By upholding the trial court's decision, the High Court has reiterated a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence: the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through evidence that is both clear and consistent. For legal professionals and the public alike, this case serves as a reminder that even in the most sensitive matters, judicial integrity relies upon the presence of verifiable, substantiated facts.