Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad in Special Sessions Case No.18/2017, whereby the accused was acquitted of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The case arose from a missing complaint filed by the father of the victim, a minor, alleging that the accused had kidnapped her. The victim was traced to Mangaluru and later returned, leading to the arrest of the accused. At trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, including the victim, her parents, medical experts, and police officials. The victim testified that the accused had persistently harassed her, forced her to accompany him to Mangaluru, and committed repeated sexual assault. However, the trial court found the evidence unreliable, noting inconsistencies in the victim's version, lack of medical evidence of sexual assault, and indications that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the accused and even forced him. The trial court also noted a land dispute between the families, suggesting false implication. The State appealed, contending that the trial court ignored the settled legal principles regarding kidnapping from lawful guardianship and the presumption under the POCSO Act. The defense argued that the evidence did not support the charges and the acquittal was justified. After hearing arguments, the High Court reserved judgment on 03.03.2023 and pronounced it on 17.04.2023. The available text does not include the final operative part of the judgment.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the victim being a minor and evidence of kidnapping and rape; whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to convict without corroboration; whether the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act applied; whether the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's case; whether the defense of false implication due to land dispute was valid.
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (04) 5
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100442/2019
H.T. Narendra Prasad, T.G. Shivashankare Gowda
V.M. Banakar (Addl. SPP) for appellant; Neelendra D. Gunde for respondent
State of Karnataka, Represented by the Police Inspector, Annigeri Police Station
Kiran Mailareppa Dandennavar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
State appeal against acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.
Remedy Sought
State sought leave to appeal and to set aside the acquittal and convict the accused.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable, and the State appealed on grounds of improper appreciation of evidence.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad) acquitted the accused on 28.02.2019 in Special Sessions Case No.18/2017.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the victim being a minor and evidence of kidnapping and rape?
Whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to convict without corroboration?
Whether the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act applied?
Whether the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's case?
Whether the defense of false implication due to land dispute was valid?
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the victim was a minor and could not be removed from her parents' lawful custody without consent, thus the ingredients of Section 363 IPC were satisfied. The victim's testimony was supported by her parents and medical evidence, and the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act should have been applied. The trial court's acquittal was based on improper appreciation of evidence.
The defence contended that there was a land dispute between the families, leading to false implication. The victim's testimony was uncorroborated; medical evidence showed no sexual assault, and the accused was found not to have engaged in sexual activity. The victim voluntarily accompanied the accused and even forced him, as evidenced by Ex.P.4 to 6. Thus, the trial court rightly acquitted the accused.
Judgment Excerpts
the victim was a minor, the Trial Court inspite of accepting it ignored the principles of law that a person cannot remove a minor from the lawful custody of her parents without their consent
the medical evidence through P.W.13 clearly explains that there was no sexual assault against the victim
the victim herself forced the accused to take her away with him
there is a presumption under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012
Procedural History
On the complaint of P.W.1, crime registered at Annigeri Police Station in Crime No.151/2016. Victim traced at Mangaluru, accused arrested on 14.10.2016. Charge sheet filed for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. Trial held, prosecution examined 22 witnesses, marked exhibits and material objects. Defense examined one witness. Accused pleaded not guilty. Trial court acquitted the accused on 28.02.2019. State preferred appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 03.03.2023, pronounced on 17.04.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 363, 366, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Section 6, Section 29, Section 30
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 378(1) and (3), Section 313, Section 357
