Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Chinnappa S/O Gurappa Anavatti on 8 December, 2023
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
CRL.A No.100253 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100253 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE INSPECTOR,
BYADGI POLICE STATION,
BYADAGI DISTRICT HAVERI,
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDWADE, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
SAROJA
HIGH COURT
OF
HANGARAKI KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
CHINNAPPA S/O. GURAPPA ANAVATTI
BENCH
Date:
2023.12.15
13:29:10
+0530
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL,
R/O: JANGINAKOPPA, HANGAL TALUKA,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581104.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VIDYASHANKAR G.DALAWAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3)
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
12/11/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI IN SPL. S.C.
(POCSO) NO.18/2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
CRL.A No.100253 of 2020
AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 12/11/2019 PASSED BY
THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.
JUDGE, HAVERI IN SPL. S.C.(POCSO) NO.18/2016 AND
CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376(2)(i) OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 4, 6, 7 AND 12 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, 2012.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant-State, through its Additional State
Public Prosecutor, has filed this appeal being aggrieved
by the acquittal of the accused in Spl. S.C. No.18/2016
vide judgment and order dated 12.11.2019 passed by the
I Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Haveri (for short, 'the Trial Court') to deal with the cases
under the provisions of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO Act').
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties to
this appeal are referred to as per their ranks before the
Trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
3. The brief facts of the case leading upto the
filing of this appeal is as under:
(a) That, on 29.12.2015 at 8.30 p.m., the accused
herein by inducing the victim with an intention to
marry her, kidnapped her from the guardianship of
her parents from Tadas Village by taking her on his
motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-27/EB-7461,
belonging to his brother. He took her to Yennekoppa
village of Soraba Taluk. Thereafter, he took her to
Manjeshwar-Manjebail of Hosangadi Taluk,
Kasaragod District, Kerala State. There, he hired a
house on rental basis belongs to C.W.16. Accused
knew that, the victim was a minor and he committed
penetrative and aggravated sexual assault on the
victim and caused sexual harassment on her. With
these allegations, a complaint came to be filed as
per Ex.P.8 by the father of the victim girl by
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
appearing before the Byadgi Police Station on
31.12.2015 at 6.00 p.m.
(b) The Byadgi Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P.8-
complaint, registered the same in Crime
No.228/2015 for the offences punishable under
Section 363 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act,
and set the criminal law in motion.
(c) The Investigating Officer, during the course of
investigation, arrested the accused and seized the
articles so marked in this case as material objects by
conducting panchanamas. After completion of the
investigation and after completion of formalities of
investigation, filed the charge sheet against the
respondent-accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 376(1) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, and under Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the
POCSO Act.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
(d) To bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution, in all, examined 18 witnesses from
P.W.1 to P.W.18 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.25
with respective signatures and got marked M.Os.1 to
13 and closed its evidence.
(e) The learned Trial Court, on hearing the arguments
and on perusal of the records as well as on
evaluation of the evidence, found the accused not
guilty and consequentially acquitted the accused of
the offences punishable under Section 363, 376(1)
of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act.
4. This is how the State being aggrieved by
acquittal of accused has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor,
in addition to narrating the facts of the case, submits
that, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is
contrary to law, facts and evidence placed on record. He
submits that, P.W.4 being the father of the victim girl
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
and the complainant, has clearly stated in his evidence
about kidnapping of his minor daughter by the
respondent-accused. He submits that, the father of the
victim girl filed a complaint as per Ex.P.8 before the
Byadgi Police Station. Accused has kidnapped the minor
victim girl from the lawful guardianship of her parents.
He submits that, P.W.14 being a circumstantial witness
has seen the accused taking away the victim on his
motor cycle. He therefore submits that, when there are
categorical statements of the witnesses with regard to
the kidnapping of the victim girl by the accused, it goes
without saying that, the offence is complete. He further
submits that, P.W.13-doctor has also opined that, there
was sexual assault on the person of the victim as per
Feedback report of the victim at Ex.P.18. He further
submits that, the victim girl, in her examination-in-chief,
has spoken before the Court that, she was with the
accused for a period of 15 days and she was in the house
of P.W.10. He further submits that, P.W.5, the victim girl,
has deposed before the Trial Court stating that accused
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
had taken away her with him. Therefore, he submits that
the offences are duly proved. He further submits that,
the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused.
Hence, relying upon the grounds urged in the appeal
memo so also relying upon the evidence placed on record
by the prosecution, learned Addl. SPP prays to allow the
appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal.
He prays to convict the accused for the aforesaid
offences.
6. Refuting the submissions of the learned Addl.
SPP, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused
submits that, no offence is committed by the accused. He
fairly admits that, both the victim and the accused, had a
love affair between them. It was a voluntary act of the
victim girl to go along with the accused and now they are
married. In support of his submission, he has produced a
photocopy of the invitation card showing celebration of
marriage between the victim girl and the accused on
18.09.2019 in front of the house of the accused situated
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
in the Village of Janginakoppa Tanda, Hangal Taluk. He
submits that, in the wedlock between the accused and
the victim, a male child, by name Yatish Channappa
Anavatti, is born. He also made available a photocopy of
the Birth Certificate of son of the accused and the victim
girl. A copy of the Adhaar Card which belongs to the
victim girl is also produced. He submits that, the
marriage of the accused and the victim girl is also
registered and a Certificate of Registration of Marriage is
also produced. It shows that the said marriage was
registered on 21.09.2019 subsequent to the marriage on
18.09.2019. It is his submission that, now the accused
and the victim girl are leading a happy marital life. He
prays to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Trial
Court on considering the evidence of victim girl and other
evidence, has rightly acquitted the accused.
7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the
following points would arise for our consideration:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
i) Whether the Trial Court has committed any legal
error in acquitting the accused of the offences
leveled against him? If so, whether such an
order of acquittal requires interference by this
Court?
ii) What order?
8. POINTS NO.I & II
(a) The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of
P.W.4, 5 and 8 i.e., the parents of the victim girl
and the victim girl herself and other witnesses.
(b) So far as the evidence of P.W.4, the father of the
victim girl, is concerned, he speaks in line with the
contents of complaint filed by him. According to his
evidence, his daughter was in the house, and he
had not sent his daughter to Tadas Village from
where she was alleged to have been kidnapped.
(c) P.W.5 is the victim girl. She, in her examination-in-
chief, states that, accused belongs to Janginakoppa
Village. He was in visiting terms to her house. He
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
used to send a word through the elders of his
village that he wants to marry her. Even she
deposed that, whenever accused had conversation
with her, he used to say that, he intends to marry
her. To this demand, she used to answer that, she
is not aged and hence, unable to marry him.
(d) She further deposed that, about two years prior to
date of she giving her evidence, at about 8.30 p.m.
when she was in Tadas Village had been to a shop
for the purpose of bring grocery, accused, along
with another person came on a motor bike. There
was no electricity supply on the street. The person
accompanying enquired the address with her. They
threw powder on her face. She lost her
consciousness. Thereafter, accused took her to
different places. She has been cross-examined at
length by the defence. In the cross-examination,
she has given a clear go-bye to her evidence
spoken in her examination-in-chief. That means,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
she has not supported the case of the prosecution
in material particulars. As she has given go-bye to
her examination-in-chief, Public Prosecutor cross-
examined her. She says in the cross-examination
that, she has now compromised with the accused.
Both are living together. She requested the Public
Prosecutor to perform her marriage with the
accused.
(e) P.W.8 - Kusuma Girisinakoppa is the mother of the
victim girl. Though she states about the
commission of the offence by the accused in her
examination-in-chief, but she is not an eye witness
to any of the incident. Though she has stated about
so many facts in her examination-in-chief, in view
of the evidence of the victim girl, her evidence
loses its evidentiary value.
(f) Though other witnesses have also spoken about the
incident, but in view of the evidence spoken to by
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
the victim girl and her hostility, their evidence
would not help the case of the prosecution.
(g) P.W.11 - Dr. Chandrakant was examined by the
prosecution to show that, he has medically
examined the accused. There were no women
surgeon available in the hospital. Therefore, he
referred the victim girl to the Government hospital
at Haveri. He states that, he has not noticed any
injuries on the person of the accused when he
medically examined him. After collecting the
M.Os.1 to 13, he sent them to Forensic Science
Laboratory.
(h) P.W.12 - Smt. Anjanadevi Kittur is the
Headmistress of the Senior Primary School, Tadas.
She has issued Ex.P.23, which is based on Register
maintained by the school.
(i) P.W.13-Dr. Nirmala Hanji is a Gynecologist of the
District Government Hospital, Haveri. According to
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
her evidence, hymen was absent when she
medically examined the victim girl. In the cross-
examination, it is elicited from her mouth that, for
some other reason also, there is possibility of
tearing of hymen. She denied the suggestion that,
she is giving false evidence. Further, in the
examination-in-chief itself, it is stated about
possibility of tearing hymen because of the age and
depending upon the physique of a women.
9. In view of such evidence, though the
prosecution relies upon the evidence of the Investigating
Officer who has conducted panchanamas, and he seized
certain material objects, their evidence would not help
the case of the prosecution.
10. In a case of the present nature, the
prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt. First of all, the victim girl has to
support the case of the prosecution in material
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
particulars. But, in this case, the victim has given a clear
go-bye to her own statement given before the police and
spoken before the Court. So also, her parents also have
not supported the case of the prosecution.
11. Now, as per the submission of the counsel for
the accused-respondent, both the accused and the victim
girl are married and have begotten a male child. The
learned Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of the
prosecution and acquitted the accused. We do not find
any factual or legal error committed by the Trial Court in
acquitting the accused. There is no merit in the appeal
filed by the State and the same is liable to be dismissed
by confirming the judgment and order of the Trial Court.
Accordingly, we answer the point in favour of the
accused-respondent and against the appellant-State.
Resultantly, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14422-DB
ii) The judgment and order of Trial Court
acquitting the accused of the offences
punishable under Section 363, 376(1) of IPC,
and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act,
is hereby confirmed.
iii) His bail bond stands cancelled.
iv) Send back the Trial Court records along with
a copy of the judgment to the Trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMS
