Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed an appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I (POCSO), Vijayapur in Special Case (POCSO) No.30/2016. The respondent/accused, Somashekhar @ Pintya, was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 5(1) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arose from a complaint lodged by the victim, a minor girl, alleging that the accused repeatedly raped her over a period and threatened her. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient. The High Court, in the appeal, examined the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It noted that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by her earlier statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape as the hymen was intact and no injuries were found. There was an unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR. The court also found no evidence that the offence was committed on account of the victim's caste. Consequently, the High Court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistent Testimony - The testimony of the victim must be reliable and consistent. In this case, the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. contradicted her earlier complaint and deposition, creating doubt. (Paras 11-20) C) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Unexplained Delay - Delay of 15 days in lodging FIR without satisfactory explanation raises suspicion about the genuineness of the prosecution case. (Paras 21-25) D) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(1), 6 - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape. The hymen was intact and no injuries were found, contradicting the victim's claim of forceful sexual assault. (Paras 26-30) E) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) - Caste-Based Insult - No evidence that the offence was committed on account of the victim's caste. The allegation of caste abuse was not corroborated. (Paras 31-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside in an appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondent/accused for all offences.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 Cr.P.C.
- presumption of innocence
- standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- delay in lodging FIR
- credibility of victim testimony
- corroboration of medical evidence
