Karnataka High Court
Sunilkumar Alias Sunil S/O Nagendrappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
CRL.A No.200071 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200071 OF 2019 (374)
BETWEEN:
SUNILKUMAR ALIAS SUNIL
S/O NAGENDRAPPA KODBOOR,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KALAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF THROUGH MAHILA
KARNATAKA
POLICE STATION KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
2. RAJKUMAR
S/O JEEVARAJ,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: TAILOR,
R/O: H.NO.9-350/8B,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
CRL.A No.200071 of 2019
CHANNAMMAALKESHWAR NAGAR,
LANGOTI PEER DARGHA,
SHAHABAZAR, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. S.P.P;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(1) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPL. CASE (POCSO) NO.52/2015
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
KALABURAGI AND PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 16.03.2019 PASSED IN
SPL.CASE.(POCSO) NO.52/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KALABURAGI AND SET
ASIDE THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED AT LIBERTY IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K., J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the convicted accused directed against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
in Spl.C.POCSO.No.52/2015 dated 16.03.2019 passed by
the II Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, wherein
learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376(2)(n),
506, 343 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act')
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
both for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)
of the IPC & Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two
year. Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
366-A of the IPC and in default, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of thirty months. He also
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each
offences punishable under Sections 343 & 506 of IPC and
in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in
brief that:-
The father of the victim i.e., one Rajakumar lodged
the complaint before the respondent-Police on 05.08.2015
alleging that his daughter i.e., the victim girl went to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
college on 23.07.2015 in the morning hours at about 9:30
a.m. Thereafter, she did not return to house. Himself and
family members searched her for one day and on
24.07.2015, he came to know that the accused kidnapped
his daughter from College and hence, he lodged the
complaint before the Police as per Ex.P1. Based on the
said complaint, the Kalburagi Women Police registered the
case against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 363 of IPC in Crime No.53/2015 dated 05.08.2015
as per Ex.P23. Subsequently, after 20 days, the accused
and the victim were traced at Bengaluru and the
respondent-Police arrested the accused. The respondent-
Police recorded the statement of the victim so also sent
her for medical examination. Thereafter, recorded her
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the
Jurisdictional Magistrate and completed the investigation
by recording the statement of all the witnesses so also
after obtaining necessary documents from the concerned
authorities including the medical reports, the Investigation
Officer i.e., PW.19 laid the charge sheet before the Special
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
Court against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 376(2)(n), 506, 343 of IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned Special
Judge, after taking cognizance of the offence, framed the
charges against the accused for the aforementioned
offences and read over the same to the accused. However,
the accused denied the charges levelled against him and
claims to be tried.
3. In order to prove the charges levelled against
the accused, before the Special Court, the prosecution in
total examined 19 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.19 so also got
marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24 and got identified
12 material objects as MOs.1 to 12.
4. After completion of the prosecution evidence,
the incriminating portion of the evidence on material
witnesses read over to the accused as per the provisions
of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the
same. On the other hand, the accused also examined
himself as DW.1 and got marked 18 documents as per
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
Exs.D1 to D18. The defence of the accused is that himself
and PW.2-victim girl were loving each other and she was
insisting him to marry. At no point of time, he has either
kidnapped her or committed forcible sexual intercourse on
her. Since he failed to marry PW.2, her father lodged a
false complaint against accused.
5. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence placed before the Special Court, learned Special
Judge convicted the accused for the aforementioned
offences and sentenced him as stated supra. The said
judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged
under this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri
Nandkishore Boob for appellant so also learned Additional
SPP Sri Siddaling P. Patil for respondent-State.
7. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the Special Court
challenged under this appeal suffers from perversity and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
illegality. Learned Special Judge convicted the accused
only based on surmises and conjectures without
appreciating the evidence on record on right perspective.
He would further contend that the evidence of PW.2-victim
girl cannot be relied to convict the accused for the charges
levelled against him since there are material contradictions
and omissions in her evidence in respect of the alleged
incident. He would also contend that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the alleged sexual assault
committed by the accused on PW.2. On perusal of the
evidence of the Doctor i.e., PW.9 categorically stated in
her evidence that there is no recent sexual intercourse
committed on the victim. Accordingly, she issued Ex.P11-
Medical Certificate. She also stated that there are no such
injuries found on the private part of the victim or on her
body. In such circumstance, the prosecution failed to
prove the alleged sexual act committed by the accused on
the victim. He would further contend that the prosecution
also failed to prove the age of the victim girl that as on the
date of the incident, she was minor. Though the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.11 i.e., the
Principal of HKE Society's Polytechnic College, Kalaburagi,
the Transfer Certificate and SSLC Marks Card of the victim
girl, the same depicts that the date of birth of the victim is
10.03.1999 and according to the same, the victim was
aged about 15 years 6 months. At the same time, the
evidence of Doctor-PW.9 and Ex.P11-Medical Certificate
issued by her clearly discloses that the victim was aged
about 18 to 19 years. In the cross-examination of PW.9,
she categorically admitted that the age of the victim was
determined by her on going through the evidence of
dentist so also considering the x-ray report. In such
circumstance, there are contradictory versions in respect
of the age of the victim girl. Hence, the prosecution failed
to prove the same. According to the learned counsel, in
such circumstance, the benefit of doubt in respect of age
has to be extended in favour of the accused. Learned
counsel would also contend that the evidence of PW.2
clearly discloses that herself and accused stayed together
for a period of 20 days and she voluntarily accompanied
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
him from the College and she remained silent for a period
of 20 days without informing the act of the accused to
anybody including her parents or neighbours. In such
circumstance, the prosecution failed to prove the forcible
sexual act committed by the accused. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned
judgment and order.
8. Refuting the above submission, learned
Additional SPP would vehemently contend that the
judgment challenged under this appeal does not suffers
from any perversity or illegality since the learned Special
Judge convicted the accused after meticulously examining
the evidence available on record in a well reasoned
judgment and the same does not call for any interference
by this Court. He would further contend that PW.2-victim
girl, PW.1 and PW.3 the parents of victim girl clearly
supported the case of the prosecution. The victim girl
categorically deposed in her evidence about forcible sexual
act committed by the accused on her for a period of 20
days against her will. Further, the prosecution also proved
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident.
The certificates i.e., Exs.P13 to P15 issued by PW.11
clearly disclose that the victim was minor at the time of
alleged incident. In such circumstance, learned Special
Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the charges
levelled against him. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for respective
parties so also having perused the documents made
available before us, the points that would arise for our
consideration are:
(i) Whether the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence challenged under
this appeal suffers from perversity and
illegality?
(ii) Whether the learned Special Judge is
justified in convicting the appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 366-A,
376(2)(n), 506, 343 of IPC and Section 6
of the POCSO Act?
10. This Court being the Appellate Court, in order to
re-appreciate the entire material on record, it is relevant
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
to consider the witnesses examined and the documents
relied upon.
(i) PW.1-Rajakumar, is the father of the victim girl
in this case, who lodged the complaint before the
respondent-Police as per EX.P1. He reiterated the
complaint averments and deposed that his daughter i.e.,
the victim was aged about 17 years at the time of
incident. On 23.07.2015 at about 9:30 a.m., she left the
house to go to college, however, she did not return from
the college on that day. Thereafter, himself and his family
members searched for her and on the next day, he came
to know that the accused kidnapped her from the college.
Hence, he lodged the complaint before the Police against
the accused. He also stated that later about 20 days, the
victim called him through phone and informed that the
accused was forcibly confined her in an apartment at
Bengaluru and as such, himself and two Police officials
went to Bengaluru and traced the accused and the victim
and brought them to Kalburagi. Thereafter, they took her
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
to hospital for treatment. He also deposed that the victim
has given 164 statement before the Magistrate.
(ii) PW.2 is the victim girl in this case. According to
her, the accused used to insist her to love him, though she
denied his proposal. Thereafter, when she was going to
College, for about three to four times, he informed her to
accompany him. When she refused to do so, he threatened
her with dire consequences. On that background, on
23.07.2015 at about 9.30 a.m., the accused came to her
College and forcibly took her to Kalaburagi City, from
there both of them went to Bijapur, in turn they went to
Bengaluru and he kept her in an apartment at Jigani.
Thereafter, he used to commit forcible sexual intercourse
on her everyday. After some days, she called her father.
Thereafter, PW.1 and the Police came and rescued her
from the accused. She identified her statement made
before the Magistrate as per Ex.P2.
(iii) PW.3-Sarika is the mother of the victim. She
also reiterated the evidence of PW.1 and deposed that her
daughter was missing from 23.07.2015 and thereafter,
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
herself and her husband i.e., PW.1 lodged the complaint
before the Police against the accused since they got
information about the kidnap of their daughter by the
accused.
(iv) PW.4-Mangalabai is the grand mother of PW.2-
victim. She also deposed that the victim came to her
house Kalagi Village in Summer Vacation and at that time,
the accused used to tease the victim and insist her to love
him. Though she advised him not to indulge in such act,
he continued the same and thereafter, she came to know
that the accused kidnapped her and committed sexual
intercourse on the victim.
(v) PW.5-Prashanth is the brother of PW.3 and
uncle of the victim. He also stated that the accused used
to insist the victim-PW.2 to love him and thereafter, they
came to know that the accused had kidnapped her and
committed sexual act on her. According to him, he also
accompanied PW.2 and the Police to Bengaluru while
nabbing the accused from the apartment at Jigani, Anekal
Taluk, Bengaluru.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
(vi) PW.6-Ambrish is the circumstantial witness.
According to the prosecution, the accused requested PW.6
to arrange rented house at Bengaluru. However, this
witness totally turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(vii) PW.7-Bhagyajyoti @ Bhagyashri is the tenant in
the apartment at Jigani, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, where
the accused detained the victim. However, this witness
also totally turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(viii) PW.8-Vijayakumar and PW.10-Shivayogi are
the witnesses to Exs.P8 to P10 i.e., mahazars of recoveries
of the clothes worn by the victim and the accused
respectively at the time of the alleged incident.
(ix) PW.9-Dr.Ayeshahumera, the Assistant
Professor, KBN Medical University. This witness examined
the victim on 24.08.2015 and after obtaining the FSL
report, gave a final opinion that there was no such sexual
act committed on PW.2. She also deposed that the age of
the victim girl was 18 to 19 years.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
(x) PW.11-Nijalingappa is the then Principal of
Women Polytechnic College HKE. He issued the age proof
along with attested copies of SSLC Marks Card and
Transfer Certificate of PW.2-victim as per Ex.P13 to Ex.P15
respectively.
(xi) PW.12-Dr.Balachandra is the Medical Officer,
who examined the accused and issued Certificate as per
Ex.P16 that the accused is capable of performing sexual
act.
(xii) PW.13-Narayanarao is the Assistant Engineer of
PWD, who prepared the spot sketch as per Ex.P17 and
Ex.P18.
(xiii) PW.14-Sampathkumar is the owner of the
apartment where the accused and victim stayed for a
period of 20 days at Jigani, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru.
However, this witness totally turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
(xiv) PW.15-Mohd. Pasha, the then ASI of
respondent Police, recorded the statement of the victim
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
girl and sent a requisition to the Court to incorporate
Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act as per
Ex.P20.
(xv) PW.16-H.V.Krishnappa is the PDO, who issued
the Demand Register Extract and Assessment Register
Extract pertaining to the apartment of one Nagaraju where
the accused and victim stayed at Bengaluru as per Ex.P21
and Ex.P22.
(xvi) PW.17-Smt.Saraswathi is the ASI, who brought
the accused and the victim from Bengaluru and produced
them before Women-PSI on 24.08.2015.
(xvii) PW.18-Shaila S. Pyatishettar is the then PSI of
Kalaburagi Mahila Police Station. She received the
complaint from PW.1 on 05.08.2015 and registered the
FIR against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 363 of IPC as per Ex.P23 and thereafter, drawn
the spot mahazar and also recorded the statement of
CWs.3 to 7.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
(xviii) PW.19-Umashankar is the then Police
Inspector, who conducted the entire investigation and laid
charge sheet before the Special Court against the accused.
(xix) DW.1-Sunil Kumar is the accused in this case.
He deposed that himself and the victim were loving each
other and the family members of the victim were aware
about their love affair, however, his family members were
not aware of the same. Since, the family backgrounds of
the victim was not good and her maternal uncle was
playing madka and involved in criminal cases, the family
of the accused refused the marriage proposal. Enraged by
the same, they lodged a false complaint against him.
11. On careful perusal of the above evidence
available on record, in order to prove the charges levelled
against the accused, the prosecution mainly relied on the
evidence of PW.2-victim girl so also her parents, i.e., PW.1
and PW.3. On careful examination of evidence of PW.2,
she categorically deposed in her evidence that prior to the
incident, 3 to 4 times the accused visited her College and
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
insisted her to love. As per the alleged incident is
concerned, she stated that on 23.07.2015, the accused
came to her College, from there they both went to
Kalaburagi City Bus Stop, from there to Bijapur, from
Bijapur to Bengalaru i.e., Jigani, Anekal Taluk and they
stayed for 29 days i.e., 24.07.2015 to 23.08.2015 in the
said place.
12. In the cross examination of PW.2, she
categorically admitted that even on the date of incident,
i.e., when the accused taking her to Kalaburagi City Bus
Stop or from there to Bijapur or from Bijapur to
Bengaluru, she did not make any such hue and cry or
made an attempt to escape or to inform anybody about
the act of the accused. It is her admitted case that they
both travelled in the bus and she did not inform the same
to anybody. Further, during her stay at Bengaluru in an
apartment, which consisting of several flats and in spite of
that, she did not inform the act of the accused to anybody
including the neighbours or other residence of the said
apartment. She also failed to inform the same to her
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
parents for a period of 20 days. In such circumstance,
there is a doubt arise in the mind of this Court about her
version that the accused forcibly kidnapped her and
thereafter, detained her in the house and committed
forcible sexual intercourse on her. Though PW.1, PW.3,
PW.4 and PW.5 i.e., the parents, grand mother and her
uncle deposed about the act committed by the accused,
however, they are the hearsay witnesses to the
prosecution case. Hence, much credence cannot be given
to their evidence. Additionally, to prove the sexual act
committed by the accused, the evidence of PW.9-Doctor,
who examined the victim categorically deposed in her
evidence that based on FSL report she gave a final opinion
that "there is no recent evidence of sexual act" and the
same is forthcoming in Ex.P11. Further, the prosecution
also obtained the FSL Certificate as per Ex.P12 which
depicts that either the seminal stains or spermatozoa were
not detected in any of the items sent for the FSL.
Admittedly, there are no such injuries found either on the
private part of the victim or on her body as deposed by
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
the Doctor-PW.9. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture
that, PW.9 examined the victim on 24.08.2015 i.e.
immediately on the next day she brought by the Police
from Bengaluru. According to the victim, from 24.07.2015
till 23.08.2015, the accused forcibly committed sexual
intercourse on her. But, as per Doctor-PW.9, who
examined the victim on the very next day i.e., on
24.08.2015, there is no such forcible sexual act committed
by the accused. In such circumstance, the oral testimony
of PW.2-the victim is contrary to the evidence of PW.9 and
the Medical Certificate as per Ex.P11. In such
circumstance, the once again a doubt arises in the mind of
this Court about the genuinity of the prosecution case.
13. In order to prove the age of the victim that she
was minor at the time of commission of crime, though the
prosecution relied on the SSLC Marks Card and Transfer
Certificate issued by PW.11 as per Ex.P14 to Ex.P15, as
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
accused/appellant, on perusal of the evidence of Doctor-
PW.9, the same depicts that the victim was aged about 18
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
to 19 years. The said opinion of the Doctor is based on
the x-ray report so also on the opinion of the Dentist. In
such circumstance, the prosecution also failed to prove the
age of victim beyond the reasonable doubt that she was
minor at the time of alleged incident. No doubt, the
Transfer Certificate and the SSLC Marks Card are to be
treated as primary documents to consider the age of
victim, however, at the same time, weightage also to be
given to the opinion of the Doctor for the reason that the
same was based on x-ray report and the opinion of the
Dentist.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
P.Yuvaprakash v. State rept. by Inspector of Police
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846 held that in order
to prove the age of the victim girl, equal credence has to
be given to the Birth Certificate, Transfer Certificate, the
x-ray and Bone Ossification Test.
15. In the case on hand, since there are
contradictory version in respect of the age of the victim
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
i.e., Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 to P15, in such circumstance, as
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Vinod
Katara vs. State of U.P., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine
1204, by referring the case of Ram Suresh
Singh v. Prabhat Singh reported in (2009) 6 SCC 681
and Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar reported in
(2008) 15 SCC 223, held in Paragraph 60 is as follows:
The ossification test is not conclusive for age
determination because it does not reveal the exact age of
the person, but the radiological examination leaves a
margin of two years on either side of the age range as
prescribed by the test irrespective of whether the
ossification test of multiple joints is conducted. The courts
in India have accepted the fact that after the age of thirty
years the ossification test cannot be relied upon for age
determination. It is trite that the standard of proof for the
determination of age is the degree of probability and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
16. We are aware that, in a case of sexual assault,
the evidence of the sole testimony of the victim can be
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
relied. At the same time, such evidence of victim must be
in a sterling quality. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rai Sandeep alisas Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 held in Paragraph No.22 is
as under:
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling
witness" should be of a very high quality and
calibre whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the
version of such witness should be in a position
to accept it for its face value without any
hesitation. To test the quality of such a
witness, the status of the witness would be
immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would
be the consistency of the statement right
from the starting point till the end, namely, at
the time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the court. It
should be natural and consistent with the
case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. The witness should
be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any doubt
as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as the sequence of
it. Such a version should have co-relation with
each and every one of other supporting
material such as the recoveries made, the
weapons used, the manner of offence
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of every
other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case
of circumstantial evidence where there should
not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of
the offence alleged against him. Only if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above
test as well as all other such similar tests to
be applied, can it be held that such a witness
can be called as a "sterling witness" whose
version can be accepted by the court without
any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise,
the version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to
sieve the other supporting materials for
holding the offender guilty of the charge
alleged.
17. Hence, on applying the above law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court to the fact and circumstances of
this case, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be termed as a
sterling quality. As discussed supra, her silence when the
alleged kidnap committed by the accused and thereafter
travelling from Kalaburagi to Anekal, Bengaluru and
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
staying there for a period of 28 days without resistance or
without any intimation to anybody does not inspire
confidence of this Court.
18. Per contra, in order to substantiate the defence
of the accused, he produced Ex.D18, i.e., the letter signed
by victim, which depicts that herself and accused were
loving from past one year and since the family members
did not agree for the same, they both went to Bengaluru
and married on 26.07.2015. During the course of cross-
examination of PW.2, the defence counsel confronted nine
photos of herself and the accused, which shows that they
both had love affair. The said photographs and letter as
per Ex.D18 were admitted by PW.2 in her evidence. In
such circumstance, inference can be drawn that the
accused and the victim were in love and thereafter, for
some reason, the father of the victim lodged the complaint
against accused. Further, there is a delay of 14 days in
lodging the complaint. As discussed supra, the oral
testimony of PW.2 does not corroborates with the medical
evidence and the prosecution utterly failed to prove the
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
forcible sexual act committed by the accused on victim or
the alleged act of kidnap, we are of the view that the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the learned Special Judge calls for interference since the
same is suffers from perversity and illegality.
19. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the
affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed in
Spl.C.POCSO.No.52/2015 dated
16.03.2019 by the II Additional
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is hereby
set aside.
iii) The appellant/accused is acquitted for
the charges levelled against him i.e.,
for the offences punishable under
Sections 366-A, 376(2)(n), 506, 343
of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4529-DB
iv) The concerned Jail Authorities are
directed to release the
appellant/accused, if he is not
required in any other case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HKV
CT;BN
