Karnataka High Court
State By vs Rizwan Shariff on 7 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5093-DB
CRL.A No. 1341 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1341 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
State By
J.J.Nagar Police,
Bengaluru,
Rep. By State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Appellant
(By Sri. P.Thejesh, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally
signed by C K
LATHA 1. Rizwan Shariff
Location: S/o Shaifulla Shariff,
HIGH
COURT OF Aged 29 Years,
KARNATAKA
Residing At No.197,
1st Cross, 2nd Main,
Farookhiya Nagar,
Padarayanapura, J.J.Nagara,
Bengaluru-500 087.
2. Syed Imran
S/o Syed Khaseem,
Aged 45 Years,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5093-DB
CRL.A No. 1341 of 2023
No.160, 2nd Main,
Farookhiya Nagar,
Padarayanapura
Bengaluru-560 026.
...Respondents
(By Sri Kulkarni Abdulrasheed Sikander Sab, Adv. for R1;
R2 - Served)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3)
Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment
and order dated 14.03.2022 in Spl.C.C.No.902/2018 passed by
the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge - FTSC-II, Bengaluru,
thereby acquitting the accused / respondent for the offences
u/s 363, 376 of IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and etc.
This Criminal Appeal, coming on for orders, this day,
Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Thejesh P, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the appellant/State at the
time of admission of this appeal. Sri Kulkarni
Abdulrasheed Sikander Sab, learned counsel for
respondent No.1/accused is present.
NC: 2024:KHC:5093-DB
2. This appeal is directed against the
acquittal judgment dated 14.03.2022 in
Spl.C.C.No.902/2018 on the file of Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru. The
accused was tried for the offences punishable
under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 6
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012.
3. The prosecution case is that prior to
30.09.2018 the accused had been to the house of
PW1/victim girl and had forcible intercourse with
her. On 01.10.2018 at 12.00 noon, the accused
enticed PW1 and took her along with him without
the consent of her lawful guardians. PW2, the
father of the girl gave a missing complaint to the
police on 06.10.2018. On 19.10.2018, both
accused and the victim girl appeared before the
police station. The accused was arrested on that
NC: 2024:KHC:5093-DB
day and remanded to judicial custody.
Investigation led to filing of the charge sheet.
4. Though the prosecution examined 14
witnesses and relied on 21 documents as per
Exs.P1 to P21 and 6 material objects as per MOs.1
to 6, finding that none of the prominent witnesses
including the victim girl supported the prosecution
case, the trial court arrived at a conclusion that
the prosecution case had not stood established.
The trial court has also held that the prosecution
was not able to prove that the girl was minor as on
the date of the incident.
5. We have perused the impugned judgment
and also the evidence. It is found that the victim
girl examined as PW1 herself does not support.
Even when she was produced before the Magistrate
for obtaining her statement under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., she denied that she was subjected to
forcible intercourse by the accused. To some
NC: 2024:KHC:5093-DB
extent PW4 has stated that her daughter was
subjected to forcible intercourse by the accused.
But when the victim girl herself denies any kind of
forcible sexual intercourse on her, the evidence
given by PW4 is of no consequence. It is true that
the medical evidence indicates a possibility of the
girl being subjected to intercourse. But it cannot
be a sole reason for holding that the prosecution
case has stood established. The medical evidence
is only supplementary in nature.
6. Ex.P.6 is the document produced by the
prosecution to prove the date of birth of the girl.
It is not even admissible document in the eye of
law. It is just a letter issued by the Head Mistress
of Government Urdu Primary School, Farookhiya
Nagar, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru, indicating the
date of birth of the girl as 19.10.2000. The trial
court has given a clear finding in this regard that
it is not an acceptable age proof. We find that the
NC: 2024:KHC:5093-DB
trial court has applied its mind to acquit the
accused. Therefore we do not find any ground to
admit the appeal. Accordingly appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMV
