Case Note & Summary
The State filed an appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the acquittal of the accused by the trial court for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution case was that on 30.09.2016, the accused kidnapped a minor girl from Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru, by taking her to Siddapura in Yadagiri District under the pretext of marriage, and subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse against her will. The complainant, who is the victim's father, registered a complaint leading to investigation and filing of charge sheet. The trial court framed charges and after examining 12 witnesses and marking documents including the victim's SSLC marks card and birth certificate, acquitted the accused. The State contended that the trial court erroneously doubted the victim's age despite Exs.P.3 and P.8 clearly proving minority, and that the accused's act of taking away a minor without parental consent constituted kidnapping. The respondent-accused argued that the victim had voluntarily accompanied him out of affection, that the ingredients of Section 361 IPC were not satisfied, and that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove sexual intercourse. The High Court formulated five points for consideration: whether prosecution proved kidnapping, rape, penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and whether the acquittal warranted interference. While analyzing the appeal, the court emphasized the double presumption in favour of the accused in acquittal appeals as laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. The court examined the arguments on age proof, noting that under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, the matriculation certificate is the most preferred document, and the trial court's failure to consider Exs.P.3 and P.8 was questionable. Regarding kidnapping, the court considered the victim's Section 164 statement where she expressed liking for the accused and willingness to go with him, raising doubt on the element of enticement. On the aspect of rape, it was reiterated that consent of a minor is immaterial under POCSO and IPC, but the prosecution must still prove sexual intercourse. The medical evidence was found to be incomplete as the doctor had not given a final opinion pending the FSL report, which the investigating officer had not provided to the doctor. The judgment further discussed the principles governing appeals against acquittal, stressing that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of the trial court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - Appellate court must bear in mind double presumption in favour of accused; if two reasonable views are possible on evidence, appellate court should not disturb acquittal - Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 relied upon (Paras 13, 14). B) Evidence - Proof of Age of Minor - Matriculation Certificate - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 - Matriculation certificate is the most preferred document to prove age; trial court's failure to consider Exs.P.3 (SSLC marks card) and P.8 (birth certificate) may have led to erroneous doubt on victim's minority (Paras 9, 10). C) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Requirement of Enticement - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 361 and 366 - For kidnapping, taking must be without consent of lawful guardian or by enticing the minor; victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P.6) indicating she went with accused voluntarily raises doubt on enticement (Para 11). D) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Consent Immaterial - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 375; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4 and 6 - Sexual intercourse with a girl under 18 constitutes rape irrespective of consent; the minor's understanding or willingness is not a defence (Paras 11, 12). E) Medical Evidence - Proof of Sexual Assault - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 45, 46 - Doctor's evidence without final opinion pending FSL report and non-production of FSL report to the doctor creates doubt on the sexual assault claim (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the offences of kidnapping, rape, and sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act, and whether the trial court's acquittal was erroneous.
Law Points
- Double presumption in acquittal appeals
- Age determination under Rule 12 of JJ Rules
- Consent of minor immaterial under POCSO and IPC
- Matriculation certificate as proof of age
