Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ramesha @ Sakkare on 17 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB
CRL.A No. 787 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY METAGALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
1. RAMESHA @ SAKKARE
S/O ELUMALAI
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ANJALI M RESIDING OF BEHIND SANITORIUM
Location: KUMBARKOPPAL, MYSURU.
High Court
of Karnataka 2. ELUMALAI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
PUDUPETE VILLAGE
SHIVASHAKTHI NAGAR
KANNAMANGALAM POST
ARANI TALUK
THIRUVANAMALAI DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU STATE.
3. SUSHEELA
W/O ELUMALAI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB
CRL.A No. 787 of 2018
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PUDUPETE VILLAGE
SHIVASHAKTHI NAGAR
KANNAMANGALAM POST
ARANI TALUK
THIRUVANAMALAI DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU STATE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R LOKANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.10.2017
PASSED IN S.C.NO.307 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 OF THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 366 AND 376(2)(i) AND (n) AND 506 OF IPC
AND ALSO U/S 5(i) R/W 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard learned Addl. SPP Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, appearing for the appellant/State.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is absent.
This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 30.10.2017 passed in S.C.No.307/2014 on the file of VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru acquitting respondents Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2) (i) & (n) and 506 IPC and also under Sections 5(1) r/w 6 & 17 of POCSO Act and prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of acquittal and convict respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charges levelled against them.
2. The case of the prosecution before the trial court is that on 18.05.2014 at 3.10 p.m., accused No.1 induced minor girl C.W.2, who is examined as PW.1 to accompany him, stating that he would marry her and when PW.1 did not agree for the same, accused No.1 threatened PW.1 with dire consequences and forcibly kidnapped her and took her to his native place at Pudupete village, Shivashakthinagar in Thiruvannamalai District of Tamil Nadu, where his parents accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing. That on 20.05.2014, the accused committed rape on -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR PW.1 in the bedroom of his house and then on 01.06.2014, accused No.1 got married PW.1 at Ganesha Temple of Paduvedu Village. It is also the charge that after marriage also, accused No.1 committed rape on PW.1 in his house at Pudupete and accused Nos.2 and 3 knowing fully well that PW.1 is still a minor permitted accused No.1 to remain in the house with PW.1 and aided accused No.1 in committing the offence and hence, the case was registered, matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. The trial judge having considered the material of charge sheet took cognizance and also framed charges against the accused persons and also recorded the evidence of PW Nos.1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to 16 were marked. On closure of the evidence of prosecution case, the trial judge recorded the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence of their behalf. However, the document Ex.D1 is marked during cross examination of PW.2. The trial Judge having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the kidnapping of PW.1 and also causing threat on PW.1 and so also subjecting her for -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR sexual act against her wish and that accused Nos.2 and 3 aided accused No.1 knowing fully well that PW.1 is a minor and allowed to marry her and made her to stay in the house along with accused No.1. So also, it is the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved that accused No.1 has got married PW.1 on 01.06.2014, illegally took her to Ganesha Temple and accused Nos. 2 and 3 aided accused No.1 to marry PW.1 and they also performed the marriage and all these points were answered considering the evidence available on record and comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Being aggrieved by the acquittal order, present appeal is filed by the appellant/State.
3. The main contention of Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the appellant/State is that the trial Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case and committed an error in acquitting the accused and also failed to take note of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.13 and documents which have been marked on behalf of the prosecution; it is the case of the victim girl while deposing before the Court that accused No.1, who -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR was working with her father as his assistant, induced her and forcibly took her to his native place and subjected her to sexual act and married her knowing fully well that she was a minor; that the trial Judge committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of the Doctor PW.4 and the evidence of PW.4 supports the case of the prosecution and PW.8, who is none other than the wife of accused No.1 also supported the case of the prosecution and also there is a presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act to raise a presumption against the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 and in spite of all these materials available on record, the trial Court committed an error in acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 and the judgment of the trial Court suffers from infirmity and the victim girl's evidence is compared to that of an injured witness and as the injured witness does not spare the actual assailants and falsely implicate the innocent person, similarly the victim also will not implicate the accused falsely and hence it requires interference of this Court.
4. Though respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused persons is represented by learned counsel Sri. R. Lokanatha, he did not -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR choose to appear and assist the Court even when this Court heard the matter at the first instance in the morning and passed over to post-lunch session to hear learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3. However, considering the grounds, which have been urged in the appeal memo and also the arguments of learned Addl. SPP, the points that arises for consideration of this Court are:-
1. Whether the trial court committed an error in acquitting the accused?
2. Whether it requires interference of this Court?
5. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the complaint, at the first instance, a missing complaint was given by the father of the victim girl as per Ex.P4, wherein in the missing complaint, it is stated by him that his daughter (PW.1) is missing from 17.05.2014 from 3.10 p.m., when he went to attend the work and in spite of search made, she was not found and hence suspected the role of the accused that he might have taken her and hence, a complaint was given on 21.05.2014 at 7.00 p.m. and hence, a case was registered as missing complaint in terms -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR of Ex-P4. Thereafter, one more complaint was filed on 27.05.2014 in terms of Ex.P5 stating that accused No.1 had kidnapped her by enticing her though she was aged about 14 years and hence invoked the offence under Section 366A of IPC. Thereafter, when accused No.1 and victim PW.1 were apprehended at Tamil Nadu, other offences were invoked. The victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in terms of Ex.P2 before the learned Magistrate at Mysuru, wherein, she(PW.1) says that accused No.1 was behind her from last one year and when he expressed that if she fails to love him, he would take away the life of her parents, she expressed over phone that she also loves him and requested not to kill her parents. Again on 18th May, when she called accused No.1, he called her to come out and she consented to go out and thereafter she went alongwith him and visited three to four villages and ultimately he took her to his house and family members also allowed and thereafter on June 1st, he married her in Ganesha temple and both of them were sleeping separately.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. Having perused Ex-P2- statement of the victim girl, it goes to show that no allegation was made against accused No.1 with regard to subjecting the victim to sexual act before marriage and even after marriage also and the evidence given by her before the Court is against Ex.P2. PW.1 in her evidence when she was examined as PW.1 reiterated that she was having acquaintance with accused No.1 and also both of them were talking over phone and frequently he was also visiting the house of her and whenever he used to call her, he was asking her to accompany him and he asked her to come behind Ramamandira, which is located in Kumbarakoppal and accordingly, she went to that place and accused No.1 came in the autorickshaw to the said place and thereafter he took her in a bus to Bengaluru and to Tamil Nadu in a train and in Tamil Nadu, he took her to his house and his family members were there and the family members also allowed them to stay in the house and they also performed the marriage of the victim girl with accused No.1 in a temple and 3-4 persons were also present during the marriage and both of them were living in a room together and inspite of her resistance, he subjected her for sexual act for two days and he had removed the mobile SIM
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR belonging to her and inspite of her request, he did not give the same, and ultimately when he gave, she made a call to the mother and before she could speak to her mother, he snatched the mobile and destroyed the SIM, however, accused No.1 spoke to one Naveen, who was working under her father and thereafter, the police came and apprehended both of them. PW.1 victim girl states that her date of birth is 23.07.2001 and also identifies her signatures as Exs.P1(a) and P2(a) and so also Ex.P3. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. But in the cross-examination, she categorically admits that she is still a spinster and accused No.1 had not developed any sexual contact with her and also not had any sexual act. She also categorically says that in terms of Ex.P2 made a statement that both of them were sleeping separately and in between 2013 to 2015, she was not using any mobile and that she is not aware of the mobile number of accused No.1 and categorically admits that for the first time she is deposing that at the time of her marriage with accused No.1, his parents, brother, sister-in- law and his sister were all present and the same was not stated before the police. Further, with regard to the aspect of rape is concerned, PW.1 says that she is not aware of the meaning of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR the rape and suggestions was made that she is falsely deposing before the Court. No doubt, this witness was also subsequently further examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and suggestions were made, wherein, once again improvement was made in the evidence of PW.1.
7. PW.2 is the mother of the victim girl PW.1 and she also reiterates in line with the evidence of PW.1. PW.2 identifies the signatures found at Exs.P4 and P5 and also categorically says that PW.1 had already left the education. But in the cross- examination also, suggestion was made that on 18.05.2014 as victim was alone, she thought of getting her to the shop and on the way to home with her husband's friend Venkatesh, she saw accused No.1 going with her daughter PW.1 near Kumbarakopalu and when she called them, they did not hear and later accused No.1 took PW.1 in an autorickshaw and she do not know which side the accused and PW.1 gone. But the said suggestion was denied and hence said portion of PW.2 was marked as Ex.D1. This witness categorically deposes that accused No.1 forcefully kidnapped her and there is an improvement in the evidence of PW.2 that there was a
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR kidnapping of her daughter and that accused No.1 had called up Naveen, who was working under her husband alongwith accused No.1 and he is also a witness to the seizure Mahazar Ex.P1 and his evidence is only a hearsay evidence.
8. PW.4 Doctor, in her evidence, says that she examined victim girl PW.1 and hymen was not intact and also seized articles and the same was sent to FSL and she gave the opinion in terms of Ex.P7. PW.4 deposed that she conducted the examination of the victim girl on 10.06.2014 and she found traces of vaginal penetration. But this witness was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-examination, the suggestion was made that the victim girl did not disclose anything. But in the cross-examination, it is elicited that FSL report is negative and seminal stains are also not detected and also admits that if a girl involves in sports, swimming and cycling and if any work is done in the agricultural land, chances of hymen not being intact can be ruled out. But the report is negative, but witness PW.4 says that based on the FSL report, he has given the final report. But this evidence is contrary to the FSL report. Since, FSL report is negative, the medical
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. Even though PW.4 Doctor says that there are traces of vaginal penetration and hymen was not intact and spermatozoa was not detected in vaginal smear and also that as the evidence of PW.4 Doctor is very clear that for other reasons also, hymen may not be intact, but in order to substantiate that PW.1 was subjected to vaginal penetration is concerned, nothing is placed on record. Except the evidence that there is sign of subjecting PW.1 for sexual act, when the FSL report is negative and based on the FSL report, PW.4 has given the final report, the evidence of PW.4/ Doctor cannot be believed.
9. Now the issue is with regard to proving the date of birth of PW.1 and witness PW.5 Assistant Teacher is examined. She says that the date of birth of the victim is 23.07.2001 and she was admitted to Government Higher Primary School for 5th Standard on 01.07.2011 and issued the document as per Ex.9 and hence, it is clear that the first standard admission records are not produced before the Court, which ought to have been produced as per the juvenile rules. No substantive piece
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR of evidence is produced before the Court to come to the conclusion that the victim was aged about 13 years 10 months.
10. PW.9 Doctor, who conducted physical, mental and also radiological examination of PW.1 victim deposes that the victim was in between the age of 16 to 17 years and not 13 years 10 months as stated and this evidence also does not corroborate the case of the prosecution with regard to the date of birth of the victim girl.
11. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on the record particularly Ex.D5- Kidnap complaint and 164 statement made before the magistrate, wherein PW.1 did not disclose that she was subjected to sexual act even prior to the marriage as well as after the marriage and also the marriage was not proved, except making an allegation that the marriage of accused No.1 and victim PW.1 was performed on 01.06.2014 in Ganesha Temple, even the priest of the said temple was also not examined and apart from that, the medical evidence, though PW.4 Doctor deposes before the Court that traces of vaginal penetration is found and that opinion is given based on FSL report, which is negative and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR when such being the case, the evidence of PW.1 does not supports the medical evidence. Apart from that, in the cross- examination, PW.1 categorically admits that accused No.1 and herself were sleeping separately and she was not subjected to sexual act and the said admission is elicited in the cross- examination of PW.1 and the evidence of PW.1 is inconsistent and Ex.P4 is contrary and there was no allegation against accused No.1 that PW.1 was subjected to sexual act and the statement made by PW.1 victim girl was made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C, but while giving the evidence, there is improvement and even in the evidence of PW.2/mother, there is an improvement that accused No.1 kidnapped the victim/PW.1. But the evidence of PW.1 is very clear that she only accompanied accused No.1 and accused No.1 had requested her to come behind Rama Mandira, Kumbarakoppulu and thereafter they travelled to Bangalore and then to Tamil Nadu, and hence question of invoking of ingredients of offence of kidnap and also subjecting her for forceful sexual act does not arise. So also, the age of the victim/PW.1 is also not proved and the preliminary documents of either the birth certificate or the document of admission of
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR PW.1 victim girl, at the first instance, are not produced and the document-Ex.P9, which is copy of admission extract of the victim to 5th standard is produced and when the same is not proved in terms of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the same is not established before the trial Court by placing on record and so also as per Section 34 of the POCSO Act, which also reads as 'Procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court'. So also in view of Section 34(1) of the POCSO Act, Section 94 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 becomes relevant and applicable. In order to determine the age of the victim, the documents which are required by the concerned Court is the date of birth certificate from the school or equivalent certificate of the concerned examination board, if the same is available and in the absence thereof, birth certificate issued by a corporation or a Municipal Authority is required to be produced. In the instant case, except producing the document Ex.P9 admission to 5th standard, no other document is placed before the Court in proof of date of birth of the victim girl/PW.1 and hence, we are of the opinion that the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR prosecution has not proved the age of the victim girl and apart from that, the Doctor, who conducted the dental, radiological and physical examination of victim girl PW.1, also says that the age of the victim girl must be between 16 to 17 years and the Hon'ble Apex Court having held in several cases that if the doctor assessed the age of the victim, there would be 1 or 2 years difference and hence, unless positive evidence is placed before the Court, question of coming to a conclusion that PW.1 victim girl was a minor cannot be accepted.
12. Having considered the evidence of the victim girl under Section 164 of CrPC, the same cannot be a substantive piece of evidence, wherein there is no allegation made subjecting the victim girl for sexual act and only in the evidence for the first time, she deposes before the Court and also she(PW.1 victim girl) having admitted that there was no sexual act on her by accused No.1 and when such evidence is available before the Court, we do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the trial Court.
13. It is settled law that while reversing the finding of the trial Court, the Appellate Court has to come to a definite
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR conclusion that there is consistent and corroborative evidence before the Court and in the absence of cogent evidence before the Court, question of coming to other conclusion does not arise and benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused only and the trial Court also even extracted the evidence of victim girl while appreciating the evidence available on record from paragraph No.12 onwards with regard to 164 statement as well as the statement made before the Court and also the admission given by PW.1 in detail in respect of Ex.P2 as well as oral evidence seen in paragraph No.33 also comes to the conclusion that evidence of the victim girl does not inspire the confidence of the Court and the evidence of the victim is inconsistent and hence we do not find any ground to reverse the same while exercising the appellate jurisdiction.
14. In the case on hand, one eyewitness Venkatesh has also witnessed the incident of kidnapping, but this witness is also not examined before the trial Court and he would have been the witness with regard to the kidnap is concerned and when all this material clearly discloses that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, we
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9610-DB CRL.A No. 787 of 2018 HC-KAR answer points in the negative. In view of the discussion made above, we pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN