Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shivayya Ramayya Matapathi on 27 May, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, S Rachaiah
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 200069/2022
Between:
The State of Karnataka
Through SHO, Bableshwar P.S
Bablewshwar, Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura
...Appellant
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)
And:
Shri Shivayya Ramayya Matapathi
S/o Shri Ramaiah Matapathi
Aged about: 24 Years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Gunadaala Village, Tq. Dist: Vijayapura
...Respondent
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1) and
(3) of the Cr.P.C, praying to (a) Grant leave to appeal against
the judgment and order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge FTSC-I (POCSO) at Vijayapur, Spl.
Case (POCSO) No.13/2017 and thereby acquitting the
Accused/Respondent for the offence punishable under Section
5(j) and punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children
2
From Sexual Offence Act; (b) Set aside the judgment and order
dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
FTSC-I (POCSO) at Vijayapur, Spl. Case (POCSO) No.13/2017
thereby acquitting the Respondent-accused for the offence
punishable under Section 5(j) and punishable under Section 6 of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act; and (c) Convict
and sentence the respondent/accused for the offences
punishable under Section 5(j) and punishable under section 6 of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act.
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Sreenivas
Harish Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the State challenging the
judgment dated 29.09.2021 in Special Case (POCSO)
No.13/2017 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge and
FTSC-I (POCSO), Vijayapur.
2. Heard the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for the appellant.
3. The prosecution case is that on 07.12.2016 the
victim girl complained of pain in the abdomen. She was
taken to hospital. Medical examination indicated that she
was pregnant. Thereafter, she delivered a female baby on
07.12.2016. On questioning, the victim girl revealed that
when she was alone in the farm house, the accused came
and solicited sexual intercourse. She was threatened not
to disclose the same to anybody, else she would have to
face dire consequences. This incident being reported to
police, resulted in FIR being registered in Crime
No.228/2016. The investigation followed and charge sheet
came to be filed against the respondent-accused.
4. During trial, the prosecution examined 17
witnesses PW-1 to PW-17 and got marked documents at
Exs.P-1 to P-21. The victim girl was examined as PW-3.
Though she stated that the accused had intercourse with
her, she gave her date of birth as 09.06.1997 and she also
stated that she had consensual intercourse with the
accused. But according to the prosecution, as per Ex.P-10
the date of birth of the victim girl is 09.06.1998. The trial
Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the correct
age of the girl and therefore acquitted the accused giving
the benefit of doubt.
5. Though the learned Additional SPP argues that
the trial court ought to have relied upon Ex.P-10 with
regard to the correct age of the victim girl, on going
through the evidence of victim girl we find that she has
firmly stated her date of birth to be 09.06.1997. The
Public Prosecutor who cross-examined the girl treating her
hostile was satisfied with giving a suggestion and denying
the date of birth as 09.06.1997 and had not made any
effort to discredit PW-3 otherwise with regard to her date
of birth. Even when the counsel for the accused cross-
examined PW-3, she stuck to her stand that she came to
know about her date of birth as 09.06.1997 and not
09.06.1998. It may be a fact that the prosecution has
produced Ex.P-10 in support of its case to prove the age of
the girl, but in view of firm statement of the girl regarding
her date of birth as 09.06.1997, the prosecution should
have led further evidence that date of birth mentioned in
Ex.P-10 was correct. Thereby there is no concrete
evidence as regards age of the girl. The trial court has
come to a right conclusion to give benefit of doubt to the
accused. Therefore, we do not find any ground to admit
this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
swk
