Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Siddaram And Ors on 8 January, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
CRL.A No.200030 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200030 OF 2018 (378)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JEWARGI POLICE STATION
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
AND:
1. SIDDARAM S/O HANMANTH JEER,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BIRAL (B), TQ. JEWARGI-585310.
Digitally signed 2. MAHESH S/O BHIMANNA GAYANAVARE
by SHILPA R AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
TENIHALLI R/O BIRAL (B), TQ. JEWARGI-585310.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. BHAGAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA HONNAL
KARNATAKA AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BIRAL (B), TQ. JEWARGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585310
4. MANAPPA @ MOUNESH S/O TIPPANNA MACHA
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BIRAL (B), TQ. JEWARGI-585310.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AYYANAGOUDA S. PATIL AND
SRI S. B. SANGOLAGI, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
CRL.A No.200030 of 2018
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378 (1) & (3) OF THE CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KALABURAGI IN SPL.CASE
(POCSO)NO.14/2015 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.509 AND 354(A) R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.12 AND
18 OF POCSO ACT 2012. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN SPL.CASE NO.(POCSO)
NO.14/2015 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.509, AND 354(A) R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.12 AND
18 OF POCSO ACT 2012. CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.509 AND 354(A) R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.12 AND
18 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the
judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Sessions
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (POCSO) No.14/2015
dated 21.11.2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred with the original ranks occupied by them
before the Trial Court.
3. The accused have been prosecuted for the
offences punishable under Sections 354A and 509 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC')
and Sections 8, 10, 12 and 18 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO
Act').
4. The case of the prosecution is that the
complainant P.W.1/victim has lodged a complaint at Ex.P.1
claiming that she is aged about 14 years and resides in
Biral(B) village and studying in 8th standard in the
Government High School in the village. It is also alleged
that P.W.2 is of her locality and she is also pursuing her
studies in 8th standard in the same school. According to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
the allegations of the prosecution, since last 3-4 months,
the accused used to tease them while going to the school
and other places. On 26.01.2015 in the afternoon, when
P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and her brother's wife Renuka had
been to Nala situated out of the village for washing the
cloths, at about 01-30 p.m., the accused came there and
teased by calling them as Aishwarya, Amulya, figure and
invited to accompany them. It is also alleged that the
accused tried to hold her hand and when Renuka
threatened them, they fled from the spot. In this regard, a
complaint came to be lodged and on the basis of the
complaint, FIR came to be registered. The investigating
officer after investigation submitted the charge-sheet.
5. The learned Special Judge has taken the
cognizance of the offences and the accused were appeared
through their counsel and were enlarged on bail. They
were also provided with prosecution papers. The charge
under Sections 509 and 354A read with Section 34 of IPC
and Sections 12 and 18 of the POCSO Act is framed and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
read over to the accused and they pleaded not guilty.
Further, it is to be noted that accused No.4 was said to be
juvenile and his case was sent to juvenile justice board
with a direction to investigating officer to submit separate
charge-sheet against him and the prosecution was only as
against accused Nos.1 to 3.
6. Though 13 witnesses were cited in the charge-
sheet, the prosecution has tendered the evidence of 8
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and reliance was placed on 6
documents marked at Exs.P.1 to P.6. After conclusion of
the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded to enable
them to explain incriminating evidence appearing against
them in the case of the prosecution. The case of the
accused is of total denial.
7. Having heard the arguments and after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the
learned Special Judge found that the prosecution has failed
to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
reasonable doubt and thereby, acquitted the accused for
the offences charged against them by exercising the
powers under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved
by this judgment of acquittal, the State is before this
Court by way of this appeal.
8. Heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the appellant/State and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/accused. Perused the
records.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader
would contend that the learned Special Judge did not
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper
perspective, especially the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
who are the victims. He would contend that though the
other witnesses are the hearsay witnesses, the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 was material and it is sufficient to prove
the guilt of the accused, as the age of the victim was not
challenged. Hence, it is contended that the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the Trial Court is perverse, arbitrary
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
and erroneous. Hence, he would seek for allowing the
appeal by convicting the accused.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/accused would contend that the entire
case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 and their evidence is inconsistent and contrary
to each other. He would also contend that they would not
corroborate with each other and rest of the witnesses are
hostile witnesses and there are no other independent
witnesses. Hence, he would contend that the learned
Special Judge has appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence in proper perspective and has rightly acquitted
the accused. Hence, he would contend that the judgment
of acquittal does not suffer from any perversity so as to
call for any interference.
11. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, now the following point would arise for my
consideration:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
"Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by
the learned Special Judge is perverse, arbitrary
as well as erroneous so as to call for any
interference by this Court?"
12. It is the specific assertion by the prosecution
that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were born on 03.04.2003 and
10.03.2003 respectively. However, the birth certificates
were produced at Exs.P.5 and P.6 and they were shown to
be born on 03.04.2001 and 10.03.2001 respectively.
Exs.P.5 and P.6 were not seriously challenged and the
minority of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 was not under serious
dispute. It is not the case of the defence that these
witnesses are major aged more than 18 years. Looking to
these facts and the circumstances, the Special Judge has
come to the conclusion that the alleged victims P.W.1 and
P.W.2 are minors as on the date of the alleged offences
and the said finding is well reasoned and does not call for
any interference.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
13. P.W.1/victim in her testimony has deposed that
she used to go to the school along with P.W.2 and the
accused used to tease them by calling Aishwarya, Amulya,
Gulabi etc., and in this regard, they warned them many
times and when they informed the same to their parents,
the same was communicated to them. She also deposed
that in spite of the same, the accused continued to tease
them. She further deposed that on 26.01.2015 when she
had been to Nala to wash cloths along with P.W.2 and her
sister-in-law, the accused came there, teased and
attempted to catch her hands and at that time, when
Renuka, i.e., her sister-in-law raised alarm, the accused
fled away from the spot. She further deposed that later
on she brought this matter to the knowledge of her
parents who went to the house of the accused and
informed the same to the parents of the accused, but they
did not accept the same and hence, they went to the
police station to lodge a complaint, but police did not
receive the complaint. She further deposed that four days
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
later on again they went to police station and lodged first
information as per Ex.P.1.
14. However, her cross-examination reveals that
the uncle of accused No.1 has also lodged a complaint
against the people belonging to her community including
her father. She further admitted that when initially police
did not receive the complaint, she did not make any
attempt to lodge a complaint with the higher police
officers. Further her evidence simply discloses that
accused No.1 attempted to drag her hands. However, the
evidence given by P.W.2 is completely contrary.
15. P.W.2 in her evidence deposed that the accused
used to tease herself and P.W.1 by using words as
Aishwarya, Amulya, figure etc., and they used to humiliate
them by blaming them. She has also deposed that on
26.01.2015 when she along with P.W.1 and Renuka had
been to Nala for washing the cloths, at about 01-30 p.m.
the accused came there, invited them to give company
and two among them had caught hold her hands and other
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
two had caught hold hands of P.W.2 and when Renuka
raised alarm, they fled away from the spot. This is a
material improvement in the evidence of this witness. As
per the evidence of P.W.1, accused No.1 attempted to
drag her hands, but this witness claims that two accused
caught hold of her hands while two other accused caught
hold the hands of P.W.1 and her evidence is completely
contrary to the case of the prosecution and evidence of
P.W.1.
16. In the further cross-examination, she admitted
that the brother of P.W.1 is the member of Kalaburagi
District Madiga Sangha and before initiating any steps,
they used to consult him and they used to take steps as
per his advice only. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are only the hearsay
witnesses and their evidence do not assist the prosecution.
The evidence of other witnesses is not of much relevant as
the entire case is rests on the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
17. The evidence on record discloses that there is
dispute and animosity between the members of the caste
of the accused and caste of complainant in respect of
Yallamma Devi temple and uncle of accused No.1 has
lodged a complaint against the number of persons
including father of P.W.2, P.W.3, father of P.W.1 and
others. Further, on perusal of the evidence it is evident
that in the said complaint, P.W.4 was also the accused.
The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is inconsistent and
contrary. The abusive words used are not reflected in the
evidence. Apart from that there is a delay of four days in
lodging the complaint. The alleged incident is said to have
taken place on 26.01.2015 at about 01-30 p.m., but the
complaint was lodged on 29.01.2015 at about 07-30 p.m.
This delay is not properly explained. It is alleged that
initially they had gone to the police station to lodge the
complaint, however the same was not entertained, but
nothing prevented them from lodging the complaint before
the higher officers, but that was no forthcoming. Further
the evidence disclose that the witnesses are attempted to
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
improve their evidence. Apart from that it is admitted that
the brother of P.W.1 is an influential member, as he is the
member of District Madiga Sangha and they used to act as
per his advice only. In that event, he would have initiated
action immediately and it appears that due to animosity
between the two groups, this complaint was lodged. The
oral and documentary evidence do not inspire confidence
of the Court.
18. Considering the evidence led by the
prosecution, the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Special Judge is also possible conclusion. When two
conclusions are possible, the conclusion arrived at by the
learned Special Judge/Trial Judge cannot be disturbed.
Further it is settled law that when two views are possible,
the view favorable to the accused shall prevail. In the
instant case considering the evidence on record, the view
taken by the Special Judge is also possible view. The
learned Special Judge appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence in proper way and has rightly
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:631
acquitted the accused. No perversity or illegality is found
in the said judgment of acquittal so as to call for
interference by this Court. Considering these facts and
circumstances, the appeal being devoid of many merits,
does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, point
under consideration is answered in the negative and
accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
