Karnataka High Court
The State By vs Sathish @ Sathya on 23 October, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.750 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
BELLARE POLICE STATION,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.
REPTD. BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANT
[BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP]
AND:
SATHISH @ SATHYA,
S/O. KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/A. MUCHINADKA HOUSE,
IVARNADU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 239.
... RESPONDENT
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.128/2017
ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
354 OF IPC AND SEC.7 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, ETC.,
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the Court of V Addl. District and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, acquitting the
accused/respondent of the charged offences punishable under
Section 354 of IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
04.01.2017, at about 5.45 p.m., near Machila, Ivarnadu Village,
Sullia Taluk, in the rubber plantation of one Karunakara Gowda,
when the victim girl - a minor aged about 14 years had gone to
collect the grass and when she was on her way back to the
house, accused came running and pulled her cheeks and
outraged her modesty. Further, when she tried to shout, he
closed her mouth with his hands and thereby committed the
charged offences.
3. Before the trial court, the prosecution got examined
PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.1 to 5 to establish the guilt of
the accused.
4. According to the victim who was examined as PW1,
on the alleged day of incident i.e., on 04.01.2017, she returned
from the school at about 4.30 p.m., After taking tea, she went to
the rubber plantation of one Karunakara Gowda at about 5.30
p.m., for collecting grass and on the way back to the house, at
about 5.45 p.m., while she was near the rubber plantation, the
accused came running and pulled her cheeks. When she shouted
loudly, he closed her mouth with his hands. According to PW1,
her brother namely PW2 witnessed the incident from the house
of one Ramesh, situated more than four furlong from the place of
incident. Hence, the trial court has rightly observed that it is
impossible for anyone to view the alleged incident which took
place at the rubber plantation from the house of Ramesh.
5. PW3 is the mother of the victim and PW4 is a
neighbour and relative of the victim. Both these witnesses are
hearsay witnesses. Hence, the only material evidence available is
the evidence of the victim herself.
5. It is relevant to see that, according to PW4, she
heard that, on the particular day, the accused person pulled the
hand of PW1. The said evidence is contrary to the evidence of
PW1. PW4 has not deposed that he heard about the incident that
the accused either pulled the cheeks of the victim or he forcibly
held her mouth with his hands. It is also elicited from the
prosecution witnesses that the accused and the victim are
cousins and there was a strained relationship between the two
families. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it
cannot be said that there was any sexual intent on the part of
the accused, which is a necessary ingredient to attract the
offence charged against him. I find no illegality or perversity in
the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Hence, the appeal
is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
snc
