Karnataka High Court acquits POCSO accused, issues guidelines on Section 164 CrPC statements

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ruling that the non-furnishing of the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC to the accused violated his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a detailed judgment, the Bench also issued a set of binding guidelines for investigating officers and trial courts to ensure strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 207(iv) CrPC ~~and~~corresponding to Section 230(iv) of the BNSS, 2023.

A miscarriage of justice averted: High Court acquits POCSO accused

Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice G Basavaraja, while allowing Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2021, held that the trial court’s failure to ensure the accused received a copy of the Section 164 statement before trial was not a mere procedural irregularity but a fundamental breach that goes to the root of a fair trial. “Non-compliance in furnishing the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. to the accused violates the accused’s fair-trial right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench observed.

The case originated from an incident on 8 May 2019, when the victim, then allegedly a minor, left home with the accused. A missing complaint was lodged by the victim’s mother, and the accused was traced with the victim. The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, recorded five days after she was medically examined, contained no mention of any sexual assault. However, during trial, she deposed that the accused had committed rape. The trial court, relying on her testimony and school records, convicted the accused.

Fair trial at stake: Non-furnishing of Section 164 statement

The High Court noted that the Investigating Officer did not produce the Section 164 statement before the trial court, nor did the court supply its copy to the accused as mandated under Section 207(iv) CrPC. This, the Bench held, deprived the accused of the opportunity to contradict the victim with her earlier version—a right that is central to a fair trial. The court further observed that the Investigating Officer had failed to apply his mind to the statement before filing the charge-sheet, and had the officer perused it, he would have realised that the victim had made no allegations of rape at that stage.

“It bears reiteration that the Investigating Officer functions, in essence, as a pre-trial judge, and is under a solemn legal obligation, before submission of any final report, to satisfy himself as to the existence of sufficient material to proceed against the accused,” the judgment stated.

Age of victim remains unproven

Another critical factor that led to the acquittal was the prosecution’s failure to prove the victim’s age. The court noted that the school register entry was not supported by the original birth certificate or hospital records, and the radiologist’s ossification test was not fully proved as the X-ray report was not produced. The Investigating Officer also failed to collect the SSLC marks card, which would have been the best evidence of age. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Satpal Singh v. State of Karnataka , the Bench held that in the absence of unimpeachable contemporaneous documents, the victim’s age could not be established beyond reasonable doubt, thereby negating the very foundation of the POCSO charge.

Guidelines for future: A roadmap for Investigating Officers and Trial Courts

Recognising that several criminal appeals before the court suffered from similar procedural lapses, the Bench issued comprehensive guidelines, which include:

  • Magistrates must preserve Section 164 statements in safe custody.
  • Investigating officers must obtain a certified copy of the statement and apply their mind before filing the charge-sheet.
  • If a witness exonerates the accused in the Section 164 statement, the officer must satisfy himself that independent material justifies the charge-sheet.
  • Trial courts must ensure compliance with Section 207(iv) and supply the accused with a copy of the Section 164 statement.
  • While recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC, judges must specifically question the accused about any contradictions or omissions in the Section 164 statement.

The court also directed that its judgment be circulated to the Karnataka Judicial Academy and the Home Department for compliance by all judicial officers and police personnel.

The final order

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the accused unless required in any other case. The Bench also awarded ₹10,000 to Advocate N.S. Sampangiramaiah, who was appointed as amicus curiae for the respondent-victim.

The case is V. Amaresh @ Ambarish v. State of Karnataka & Anr. , Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2021, decided on 27 August 2026 (as pronounced on 27 August 2026) by the High Court of Karnataka.