Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, heard a criminal appeal preferred by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Special Case (POCSO) No.119/2017, acquitting the respondent-accused of offences under Sections 376, 316 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(l), 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case of the prosecution was that in 2016, at Sindhol Thanda, Bidar District, the accused, aged about 30, got acquainted with the victim, then aged 17, at a kirana store. He developed a close relationship and, on a false promise of marriage, seduced and repeatedly raped her at various locations. The victim became pregnant and informed the accused, then working in Bangalore, who directed her to come to Zahirabad bus station. The accused took her to a hospital in Sangareddy where drugs and injections were administered for forcible termination of pregnancy without her consent, allegedly causing the death of the unborn child. After the parents learned of the incident, a panchayat failed to settle the matter, and on 16.08.2017, a complaint was lodged at Mannalli Police Station, leading to registration of Crime No.91/2017. The trial court, after examining 22 prosecution witnesses, 18 documents, 14 material objects, and 4 defense witnesses with 8 exhibits, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age below 18 years, the pregnancy and its termination, and the accused's presence at the relevant time. The State's appeal contended that the trial court erroneously disregarded the school certificate (Ex.P12) issued by the Head Master (PW8) which recorded the date of birth as 01.06.1999, making the victim a minor. Reliance was placed on Mahadev v. State of Maharashtra and Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana to argue that the school certificate should be treated as determinative of age. The prosecution also pointed to the victim's testimony (PW1) and corroborative witnesses (PW2, PW5, PW6). The accused's counsel countered that the school admission register showed an identical date of birth for all students admitted in 1999, an impossibility, and thus was unreliable; medical evidence indicated the victim was 17-18 years or more; and documentary evidence (Exs.D1-D8) proved the accused was gainfully employed in Bangalore at the material time. After hearing submissions, the High Court framed three points for consideration: whether the prosecution proved the victim's minority, whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's judgment warranted interference. The available excerpt of the judgment does not contain the court's final analysis or decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Determination of Age of Victim in Sexual Offences - Proof of Age under POCSO Act - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 2(d) - The prosecution sought to prove victim's age as 17 relying on school certificate (Ex.P12) showing date of birth 01.06.1999 and testimony of mother and headmaster; defense challenged reliability of school register as all admitted students had same date of birth, an impossibility, and medical evidence indicated victim was 17-18 or more. The court considered whether school certificate was conclusive and whether prosecution had discharged burden of proving minority beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 9-13). B) Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - Consensual Relationship vs. False Promise of Marriage - Indian Penal Code, Section 376; POCSO Act, Sections 4, 5(l), 6, 8 - Prosecution alleged accused seduced minor victim on false promise of marriage and forcibly raped her multiple times; defense denied and presented alibi evidence of accused being employed in Bangalore. The court examined whether prosecution evidence established lack of consent based on false promise and whether accused refuted charges (Paras 3-6, 13). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - The State appealed acquittal arguing trial court erroneously disregarded credible evidence; respondent contended acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and no case for interference. The High Court framed points and noted the principles for interference with acquittal (Paras 1, 9-11, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved that the victim was below 18 years of age as on the date of incident; whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; and whether the judgment of the Trial Court warranted interference.
Law Points
- victim age determination
- standard of proof for minority
- reliability of school certificate
- medical evidence
- burden of proof in criminal appeals
- false promise of marriage
- interference with acquittal
