Karnataka High Court
Modin vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 11 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305
CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200335 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
MODIN S/O IBRAHIM MUKTEDAR,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O INDRA NAGAR, HUDGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR-585329.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HUMNABAD POLICE STATION,
DIST: BIDAR-585401,
Digitally signed by R/BY ADDL. SPP,
SHIVALEELA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI BENCH.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O SHIVARAY,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O INDRA NAGAR, HUDGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR-585329.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ADMIT THIS APPEAL, CALL
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305
CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024
HC-KAR
FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT BELOW AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 08.10.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR SITTING AT BASAVAKALAYAN IN
SPL. C. NO.5015/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 366(A), 376(2)(N) OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 6
OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 3(1)(W), 3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST
ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 08.10.2024 and order of sentence dated 09.10.2024, passed in Special Case No.5015/2022, by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan.
2. The parties are referred to by the same rank what they had before the trial Court.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that:
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Humnabad Circle laid the chargesheet against the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 366A and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, 'the POCSO Act') and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, 'the SC/ST (POA) Act').
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused and victim girl are residents of Indra Nagar, Hudgi village, Humnabad Taluk. The accused knowingly well that the victim girl is a minor and belong to the Scheduled Tribe community, seduced her stating that he is loving her since three years and for the past one year, he used to commit penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl when nobody was in the house. Lastly, the accused has forcible sexual -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR intercourse with the victim on 25.12.2021. The accused used to instigate the victim to run away from house to get married. On 07.02.2022 at about 03.00 p.m., when the victim came to Humanabad bus stand to go to Kanakatta village, accused called her through phone, seduced and forcibly took her to Hyderabad, Bengaluru and then to Karwar and on 27.02.2022 at about 10.00 a.m., left her at Humnabad. Because of sexual assault upon victim girl, she became two months pregnant. Thus, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
5. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Till date, the accused is in judicial custody.
6. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused. The accused, -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined eighteen witnesses as, PW.1 to PW.18, thirty-six documents were marked as Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P.36 and nine material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.9. On closure of evidence on the prosecution side, the accused statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. However, he has stated in his statement that:
"PW1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ£À PÉÆ É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¨Á¬Ä ªÀÄÄaѸÀ®Ä F jÃw ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀt £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ É zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛ¼É."
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 366A, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (n) of the IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and against the facts and evidence on record, and also against the well-established principles governing the criminal law. Hence, deserves to be set aside. PW.2, being the victim girl has not deposed about the sexual intercourse by the accused on her. She has also denied Exhibits P.6, 7 and 19 DNA report. PW.8, PW.10 and PW.11, who are experts with regard to the medical examination of the victim and accused, but the evidence and reports issued by them as per Exhibits P.7, 17 to 19 and 22 to 25 and M.Os.1 to 5 are not admissible when the mahazar witnesses have not supported with regard to the alleged blood sample of the accused drawn by the doctor -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR PW.10 at Sub-Jail Humnabad. Therefore, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it creates doubt about the genuineness of the DNA report Ex.P.19. That, looking into the Ex.P19 and evidence of PW.8, PW.10 and 11, there are major inconsistencies with regard to dates of collecting the foetus and forwarding the same to the concerned authority. Apart from that, the procedure for DNA test is not followed. So, it appears that there is tampering with the alleged blood sample of the accused and no proper procedure is followed for drawing the alleged blood samples and there was a every possibility of tampering of alleged blood samples and there is inordinate delay in reporting the DNA test. Hence, it creates a room for suspicion about DNA report.
12. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW.12 Head Master issued Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27. He entered the date of birth only on the strength of 'Janma Kundli' and the said document was not at all collected and produced before the Court and apart -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR from that, Ex.P.33 is not a birth certificate. Hence, prosecution utterly failed to prove the date of birth of the victim girl as per the Rule 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short, 'the JJ Rules').
13. Further, it is contended that the victim girl is more than 18 years even as per dental report and in view of the settled proposition of law, the Trial Court ought to have extended the benefit of two years.
14. It is further submitted that PW.2, being the victim girl not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim girl was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, the question of committing an offence under the penal provisions of the POCSO Act does not arise. It is contended that absolutely there are no evidence to convict the accused for the other offences. On all these grounds, he prays to allow this appeal. To substantiate his
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.100504/2021, decided on 05.06.2024 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Malleshi and Another and in Criminal Appeal No.100570/2022, decided on 10.07.2025, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri. Nagesh.
15. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective. It is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and prays to dismiss the appeal.
16. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the materials available on record, the following points would arise for my consideration:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR "1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim was minor as on the date of commission of offence as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act?
3. Whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. What Order?
Point No.1:
17. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused and victim girl are residents of Indra Nagar, Hudgi village, Humnabad Taluk. The accused knowingly well that the victim girl is a minor and belong to the Scheduled Tribe community, seduced her stating that he is loving her
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR since three years and for the past one year, he used to commit penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl when nobody was in the house. Lastly, the accused has forcible sexual intercourse with the victim on 25.12.2021. The accused used to instigate the victim to run away from house to get married. On 07.02.2022 at about 03.00 p.m., when the victim came to Humanabad bus stand to go to Kanakatta village, accused called her through phone, seduced and forcibly took her to Hyderabad, Bengaluru and then to Karwar and on 27.02.2022 at about 10.00 a.m., left her at Humnabad. Because of sexual assault upon victim girl, she became two months pregnant.
18. To prove the age of the victim girl, the prosecution has produced Ex.P.26 school admission extract in which the name of the victim girl is shown and her date of birth is shown as 23.01.2005. To prove this document, the prosecution has examined PW.12 Vijayakumar, Head Master of the school, who has deposed as to the issuance of Exhibits P.26 and 27 at the request
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR of the police. During the course of cross-examination of PW.12, he has clearly admitted that on the basis of 'Janma Kundli', the school authorities have entered the date of birth of the victim. Further, he has deposed that at the time of admission, the parents of the victim girl have produced 'Janma Kundli' and after filling up the application, the school authorities have returned the 'Janma Kundli' to the parents. However, they have not obtained the Xerox copy of the said document.
19. PW.1, Mahananda, the mother of victim has not whispered anything about the 'Janma Kundli' said to have been given to the school authorities. The Investigating Officer has not whispered anything about the non- production of 'Janma Kundli'. The Investigating officer has not produced the birth certificate of the victim and he has not whispered anything about the non-production of birth certificate of the victim girl. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer has failed to comply the mandatory provision of Rule 94 of the JJ Rules.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR
20. With regard to the medical evidence concerning the age of the victim, the prosecution has produced Exhibit P.18, the dental examination report, which indicates the approximate age of the victim as 18 years. The Dental Surgeon who issued Exhibit P.18, has not been cited as a witness. Furthermore, the prosecution has not examined him before the Court by filing the necessary application. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution that, had the concerned dentist been examined before the Court, his testimony would have been unfavorable to the prosecution's case. The opinion given by the Dental Surgeon as per Exhibit P18 serves to falsify the evidence of PW.12. Moreover, mere production of Exhibit P.26 does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 94 of the JJ Rules. Viewed from multiple angles, the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a "child" as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR Point No.2:
21. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was child on the date of the commission of the offence, the question of committing offence under the penal provisions of the POCSO Act does not arise.
Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in the Negative. Point No.3:
22. With regard to the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the victim PW.2, has not supported the prosecution's case.
PW.1, the mother, is a hearsay witness. Even as per Ex.P.5, the statement of the victim under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C., she has not uttered anything against the accused. The victim herself has stated that the accused did not commit rape or kidnap her. Therefore, the question of committing the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376(2)(n) of the IPC does not arise. Concerning the penal provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act also, there is
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR absolutely no evidence to prove that the accused committed the said offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and also bearing in mind the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of alleged offences. Hence, Point No.3 is also answered in the Negative.
23. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is Allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction dated 08.10.2024 and order on sentence dated 09.10.2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan in Special Case No.5015/2022, is set aside.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2305 CRL.A No. 200335 of 2024 HC-KAR iii. The accused is acquitted of the offences under Sections 366A and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
iv. The Registry is directed to send intimation to the concerned jail authorities through E-mail to release the accused, if he is not involved in any other cases.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSP/TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56