Karnataka High Court
The State By K R Nagar vs Mahesha on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB
CRL.A No.1692/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1692/2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY K.R.NAGAR
POLICE STATION
REPTD. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001 ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.SOWMYA R, HCGP)
AND:
1. MAHESHA
S/O KUNTASINGRAIAH
AGED 25 YEARS
R/O SOUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571602
Digitally
signed by K S 2. MANJUNAYAK
RENUKAMBA S/O THAMMAIAYA NAYAK
Location: AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
High Court of
SOUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
Karnataka
K.R.NAGAR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HEMANTH KUMAR S.R., ADVOCATE FOR R.1;
SMT.ARCHANA K M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378 (1)
AND (3) OF THE CR.PC. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09.01.2019 PASSED BY THE VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN
S.C.NO.365/2014 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO.1
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 376(2)(i)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB
CRL.A No.1692/2019
HC-KAR
AND (n) OF IPC AND SECTION 5(l) READ WITH SECTION 6 OF
POCSO ACT AND SECTION 9 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD
MARRIAGE ACT,2006.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Though the matter has come up for admission, with consent of both side, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The State has preferred this appeal challenging the order of acquittal in SC No.365/2014 passed by VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has acquitted respondent No.1/accused of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i) and
(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (for short 'Child Marriage Act').
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR
4. Respondent No.1 was the sole accused and respondent No.2 was complainant/PW.2 in SC No.365/2014 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.
5. Admitted facts are that PW.1 is the daughter of PWs.2 and 3. The case of the prosecution was that, as on 10.05.2014, PW.1 was aged 15 years. When she was studying in 9th Standard, accused lured her of love and romance. On 10.05.2014 at 03:00 p.m, when she had accompanied her mother to State Bank of Mysuru in K.R Nagar, he kidnapped her from K.R Nagar and took her to Bylashettyhalli village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. On 11.05.2014 at 01:00 p.m. he married her in Byla Anjaneyaswamy Temple situated in Bylashettyhalli village in the presence of PWs.4 and
5. Then he sexually cohabited with her in the rented house belonging to CW.11. Thereby, he committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i) and (n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Child Marriage Act.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR
6. According to the prosecution, regarding the incident, PW.2 filed complaint as per Ex.P4 before CW.31. Based on that, he registered FIR as per Ex.P16 against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. On the instruction of investigating officer/PW.11, on 29.06.2014 his staff traced and produced accused and victim before him. PW.11 on conducting part of investigation, handed over further investigation to PW.10. During the course of investigation, investigating officers said to have recorded the statements of the witnesses, subjected the victim and the accused to medical examination, collected the incriminating materials and filed charge sheet.
7. The trial Court on taking cognizance of the offences, framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i) and (n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Child Marriage Act. As the accused denied the charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P1 to 18 and MO.1 were marked. After his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused did not lead any defence evidence.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR
8. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a minor or aged below 18 years and that she was subjected to forced sexual intercourse. The State has challenged the said judgment and order in the above appeal.
9. Heard both side.
10. Learned HCGP for the State and Smt. Archana K.M, learned Panel Advocate for HCLSC for respondent No.2, reiterating the grounds of the appeal submit that victim has admitted the relationship between herself and accused and the fact of she being aged below 18 years was proved. Further the victim being aged below 18 years was proved by the evidence of PW.6/Vice Principal, who issued Study Certificate/Ex.P7 and evidence of PW.9, who issued Ossification test report/Ex.P13. The trial Court was in error in rejecting such evidence.
11. Per contra, Sri Hemanth Kumar S.R, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/accused submits that basic fact of victim being aged below 18 years was not proved. The evidence on record clearly shows that the accused and PW.1 had romantic relationship, they married and after marriage -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR they had consensual relationship. PWs.2 and 3/parents of the victim did not speak anything about the age of the victim. The prosecution did not adduce legally acceptable evidence to prove the age of the victim. Hence, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused.
12. On hearing both side and on examination of materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is "whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal suffers any illegality, infirmity or perversity?"
Analysis
13. As already noted, the fact of PWs.2 and 3 being the father and mother of PW.1 is not under dispute. As per PW.1, herself she was in love with the accused. Both of them eloped from their village, married and then they cohabited with each other.
14. It is settled proposition of law that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, the scope of interference is limited. Unless it is shown that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal suffers patent illegality, arbitrariness or perversity, the same cannot be interfered, merely on the ground that another view is probable. This view of ours is -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1 Prem Singh Vs State of Haryana . This Court has to examine this matter in the light of the said legal position.
15. In the case on hand, the prosecution was required to prove the following two aspects beyond reasonable doubt:
(i) That PW.1/victim as on the date of the offence was aged below 18 years;
(ii) That the accused committed forced sexual intercourse against her.
Reg. age of the victim:
16. The burden of proving the fact that victim was aged below 18 years, beyond reasonable doubt was on the prosecution.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo Vs State of Maharashtra and Another2 has held that the factors that apply to assess the age of juvenile in conflict with law under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 ( for short 'JJ Rules') apply in assessing the age of victim also. The Hon'ble 1 (2013)14 SCC 88 2 (2013) 14 SCC 637 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR Supreme Court in Para 12 of the above said judgment referring to Rule 12(3) of JJ Rules held as follows:
"12. We can also in this connection make reference to a statutory provision contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, where under Rule 12, the procedure to be followed in determining the age of a juvenile has been set out. We can usefully refer to the said provision in this context, inasmuch as under Rule 12(3) of the said Rules, it is stated that:
"12. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, by the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining--
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat;"
Under Rule 12(3)(b), it is specifically provided that only in the absence of alternative methods described under Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), the medical opinion can be sought for. In the light of such a statutory rule prevailing for ascertainment of the age of a juvenile, in our considered opinion, the same yardstick can be rightly followed by the courts for the purpose of ascertaining the age of a victim as well."
(Emphasis supplied) -9- NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR From the above, it becomes clear that, to prove the age of the juvenile victim, the prosecution has to first produce matriculation or equivalent Certificate, if available. Only in the absence of that, date of birth certificate from the school first attended has to be produced. In the absence of the above two, the birth certificate given by the Corporation or Municipal authority or Panchayath has to be produced. In the absence of any of them, investigating officer has to resort to get the ossification test of the victim done.
18. In the present case, PW.1/victim deposed that she studied from 1st standard to 8th standard in Government Higher Primary School, Sathi village and she joined Government Pre- University College in K.R Nagar for 9th Standard. At the relevant time, PW.6 was working as Vice Principal of Government Pre-University College, K.R. Nagar. He deposed that the victim was admitted into their school in 9th Standard. As per their school records, her date of birth was 18.09.1999 and in that regard, he has issued Ex.P7/Study Certificate based on the admission register entries.
19. From the above evidence it becomes clear that Ex.P7 is not the document from the school first attended. There
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR was no material to show that the victim had passed matriculation. However, there was scope for the investigating officer to collect the records from the first attended school, which was not done. Without that, investigating officer resorted to the ossification test. Even as per evidence of PW.9/doctor who conducted ossification test and issued certificate/Ex.P13, the age of the victim at the relevant time was between 17 and 18 years. Firstly, when the other best evidence was available in terms of judgment in Mahadeo's case referred to supra, resorting to ossification test was not required. Secondly, even as per the said ossification test, the approximate age was between 17 and 18 years.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 64 of the judgment in Vinod Katara V.s State of Uttar Pradesh3 has held that ossification test is not conclusive for the age determination because it does not reveal the exact age of the person. It was further held that radiological examination leaves a margin of error of two years on either side of the age range as prescribed by the test, irrespective of whether the ossification test of multiple joints is conducted. Thus, there is a margin of two 3 AIR 2022 SC 4771
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR years on either side in age determined in the ossification test. Therefore, the age of victim/PW.1 could be between 18 to 20 years. When the age proof is not accurate, the benefit of that doubt should go to the accused. Hence, the trial Court was justified in holding that the age of the victim was not proved by legally acceptable evidence.
Reg. forced sexual relationship:
21. PW.1 is the alleged victim of sexual assault. She categorically stated in her evidence that she had romantic relationship with the accused, they eloped from their house, married and they sexually cohabitated with each other. Trial Court was justified in holding that the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i) and (n) of IPC, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any patent illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of the trial Court, warranting interference of this Court. Hence, the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48765-DB CRL.A No.1692/2019 HC-KAR Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Smt. Archana K.M, learned Panel Advocate for the High Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11