Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the acquittal of seven accused persons by the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, in S.C. No.25/2014. The accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 6, and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case of the prosecution was that on 13-10-2013, accused No.1 (Gireesh) kidnapped the minor victim (daughter of PW-2) by threatening to commit suicide, took her on a motorcycle to various places including houses of his relatives in Gaddige, Kittooru, and Hullahalli, and repeatedly committed forceful sexual intercourse with her against her will. Accused No.2 (Srinivasa, brother of accused No.1) allegedly aided by informing accused No.1 about the missing complaint and advising him to change locations. Accused Nos.3 to 7 allegedly threatened the victim on 24-10-2013 and forced her to give a false statement to the police to protect accused No.1. Consequently, on 28-10-2013, after parental persuasion, the victim disclosed the true facts, leading to registration of FIR in Crime No.129/2013 at V.V. Puram Police Station. The trial court, after examining 15 witnesses and marking documents including the school admission record (Ex.P22) as proof of age, acquitted all accused vide judgment dated 04-10-2016. In appeal, the State contended that the trial court misappreciated the evidence, ignored the unshaken testimony of the victim (PW-1) and other material witnesses, failed to correctly apply the age determination rules under the Juvenile Justice Act, and erroneously held that the victim's consent was material despite her proven minority (14 years 3 months). The State argued that the defence of consensual relationship was improbable and that the false implication theory was not supported by evidence. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry and Justice Umesh M. Adiga. Arguments were advanced by the Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant and advocates for the respondents. The judgment was reserved on 04-12-2023 and pronounced on 09-02-2024. (Note: The provided text does not include the court's analysis or final decision.)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in S.C. No.25/2014 for offences under IPC and POCSO Act is sustainable.
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 1
Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2017 (A)
Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, Justice Umesh M. Adiga
Shri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional SPP for Appellant; Shri Pavan H.K., Advocate for R1 and R2; Shri Renukaradhya, Advocate for R3 to R6; R7 served
Gireesh, Srinivasa, Hanumanthaiah, Automurthy, Naveena, Auto Hanumantha @ Hanumantha, Rangaswamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal by the State against acquittal of accused persons.
Remedy Sought
The State sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the respondents for the charged offences.
Filing Reason
The State contends that the trial court misappreciated evidence, ignored material witnesses and the age proof of the minor victim, and erroneously acquitted the accused.
Previous Decisions
The VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, in S.C. No.25/2014 vide judgment dated 04.10.2016 acquitted all seven accused of all charges.
Issues
Whether the judgment of acquittal is perverse and against the weight of evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
The trial court ignored the evidence of PWs-1, 11, 12, and 15, and the material document Ex.P22 (school admission record) proving the victim's age as 14 years 3 months, in violation of Section/Rule 94 of the JJ Act.
The victim being a minor, the question of consent does not arise; the trial court failed to appreciate that consent of a minor is immaterial in such offences.
The defence of consensual relationship and false implication is improbable, given the socio-economic disparity and lack of motive for the victim's family to falsely implicate the accused.
The victim's testimony about forceful sexual intercourse was not seriously challenged in cross-examination and should be accepted as credible.
Accused No.2 had complete knowledge of the kidnapping and aided accused No.1 by providing information to evade arrest, thereby committing offences under Section 506 IPC and Section 21 POCSO Act.
Accused Nos. 3 to 7 threatened the victim and forced her to give a false statement to the police, obstructing justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned trial judge completely ignored evidence of PWs.1, 11, 12 and PW.15. The learned trial judge has also ignored Ex.P22 which is a clinching evidence to prove age of the victim girl.
When the prosecution proved that victim girl was minor and aged about 14 years and 3 months at the time of incident, question of consent does not arise; because there cannot be valid consent by a minor to do any such illegal acts.
PW-1/victim girl has stated in her evidence in detail that accused No.1 had taken her to different villages and to different houses of his relatives and had forceful sex with her against her wish, inspite of her refusal to have sex.
Procedural History
On 13.10.2013, the victim was kidnapped by accused No.1. After moving to various places, on 24.10.2013, she was produced before the police with a false statement under threat from accused Nos.2-7. On 28.10.2013, the victim lodged a true complaint, leading to registration of Crime No.129/2013 at V.V. Puram Police Station for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed as S.C. No.25/2014 to the Special Court. The trial concluded with the judgment of acquittal dated 04.10.2016. The State filed the present appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 04.12.2023, and pronounced it on 09.02.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 366, 376, 506, 34, 363
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 4, 6, 21
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378(1), 378(3), 207, 313
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: 94
