Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ravi S/O Basappa Madannavar on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, Ramachandra D. Huddar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8965-DB
CRL.A No. 100186 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100186 OF 2020 (A-)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
NAVALAGUND,
NAVALAGUND POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
SAMREEN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AYUB DHARWAD BENCH.
DESHNUR
Digitally signed by
SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR ...APPELLANT
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Date: 2023.08.19 10:11:29
+0530
(BY SRI. M. B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL SPP)
AND:
1. RAVI S/O. BASAPPA MADANNAVAR
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: TIRLAPUR, TQ: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
PIN CODE - 582208.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8965-DB
CRL.A No. 100186 of 2020
2. KUMAR S/O. BHARAMAPPA BANDIWADDAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: TIRLAPUR, TQ: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
PIN CODE - 582208.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. B. KARIGAR, ADV. FOR R1 AND 2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) (3) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 29/12/2018
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SPL.S.C.NO.05/2017 AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
29/12/2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SPL. S.C.
NO.05/2017 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 376,
109 R/W SECTIONS 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 6 AND 17 OF
POCSO ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
on admission of this appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8965-DB
CRL.A No. 100186 of 2020
2. Shri. D. B. Karigar, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 is present.
3. The State has preferred this appeal challenging
the acquittal judgment in Spl. S.C. No.5/2017 on the file
of II Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge,
Dharwad. The respondents/accused faced trial for the
offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 109 of
IPC and Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act read with
Section 34 IPC. PW-2 was said to have been subjected to
forcible intercourse by the respondents and this was the
reason for respondents being prosecuted.
4. The trial Court acquitted the respondents
mainly on two counts; firstly the age of PW-2 was found to
be 18 years or more than 18 years and secondly that she
was a consenting party. PW-11 Dr.Ramachandra issued
age certificate as per Ex.P.12 opining that age of the girl
was between 17 and 18 years.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8965-DB
CRL.A No. 100186 of 2020
5. As has been rightly held by the trial Court, the
age certificate only discloses approximate age of the girl
and not the correct age. PW-12 herself stated before the
Court while giving evidence that her age was 19 years and
therefore, the trial Court held that a year before the date
of her examination in the Court, her age might be around
18 years. Because of inconsistency with regard to the age
of the girl, benefit of doubt was given to the accused. In
our view, the findings given by the trial Court are proper in
the light of facts and circumstances. Therefore, we do not
find good ground to admit the appeal. Hence, appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
