Karnataka High Court
Hanamantha Yankappa Jarakunti vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2821
CRL.A No. 100218 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100218 OF 2021 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
HANAMANTHA YANKAPPA JARAKUNTI
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE (IN CUSTODY),
R/O. HIREMANNAPUR, TQ. KUSTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUSTAGI POLICE,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO, CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALLOW
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
Digitally signed by B
K
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.06.2021
MAHENDRAKUMAR
BK Location: HIGH
COURT OF
PASSED IN SPL. SC. POCSO NO.03/2019 BY THE ADDITIONAL
MAHENDRAKUMAR
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.20
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 KOPPAL, THEREBY
16:40:01 +0530
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/S 376, 363 OF IPC AND 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND
SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO TO SUFFER RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE
OF RS.25,000/- WITH DEFAULT CLAUSE OF SIX MONTHS S I FOR
SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT AND 5 YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT
AND FINE OF RS.10,000/- FOR OFFENCE U/S 363 OF IPC WITH
DEFAULT CLAUSE OF 6 MONTHS SI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2821
CRL.A No. 100218 of 2021
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant challenges the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
wherein he has been convicted for offenses punishable under
Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
2. The prosecution alleges that CW6/PW1, a student of
PUC at Gavisiddeshwara College, Koppal, was residing with her
parents and siblings in Hiremanapur village, Kushtagi Taluk.
3. On 09.10.2018, the complainant, as usual, left for his
daily wage work while the victim remained at home with her
mother. That evening, the family had dinner together at around
10:00 p.m. The complainant's wife, Sunanda, and the victim sat
outside the house conversing, while the other children went to
sleep.
4. Around 10:45 p.m., when the complainant returned
home after consuming betel leaf at the bus stand, he found his wife
sitting outside. Upon inquiry, she informed him that the victim had
gone to relieve herself but had not returned.
5. A missing complaint was filed, and during the course of
the investigation, the accused and the victim were found at the
accused's brother's house in Yapaladinni village.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2821
6. The victim's statement, recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., states that the accused forcibly took her to Yapaladinni,
approximately 20 kilometers away, on foot. She further alleged that
the accused committed sexual assault on her at his brother's house
between 09.11.2018 and 12.11.2018.
7. The prosecution contends that the accused, fully
aware that the victim was a minor, abducted and sexually
assaulted her.
8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined
15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15, exhibited documents as Exs.P1 to
P34, and marked material objects as MOs.1 to 10. After framing
points for consideration and appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding
that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly passed the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that
the medical evidence clearly establishes that there was no recent
sexual intercourse. The alleged offense is said to have occurred
between 09.11.2018 and 12.11.2018, while the victim was found on
14.11.2018. This, he contends, raises serious doubt as to whether
the prosecution has proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Further, except for school records, the prosecution has not
placed any substantive evidence to establish that the victim was a
minor at the time of the alleged incident. The victim was not
subjected to ossification, radiological, or dental examination to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2821
determine her age, and the school certificate alone lacks
evidentiary value. In support of this contention, reliance is placed
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Yuvaprakash v.
State, rep. by Inspector of Police.
10. In response, the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent-State submitted that the medical
records at Exs.P19 to P21 clearly establish that the victim was
subjected to sexual intercourse, as they indicate rupture of the
hymen. Additionally, the school leaving certificate at Exs.P10 and
P11 establishes that the victim was 16 years, 3 months, and 25
days old as of the date of the incident. The Trial Court, after
considering both oral and documentary evidence, rightly recorded a
finding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment
does not warrant interference.
11. After considering the arguments advanced by both
parties and upon perusal of the trial court records, the only point
that arises for consideration is:
Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is
legally sustainable?
12. The prosecution alleges that the accused kidnapped
the victim on 09.11.2018 at approximately 10:30 p.m. The victim, in
her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., as well as in
her testimony before the Trial Court, stated that the accused
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2821
forcibly took her to Yapaladinni village, approximately 20 km from
her house, where he committed sexual intercourse against her will
at his brother's house until 12.11.2018.
13. The doctor who examined the victim was examined as
PW13 and issued his opinion as per Exs.P19 to P21. In his final
report, he opined that there were signs suggestive of sexual
intercourse but no signs of recent intercourse. He further noted that
the victim's hymen was ruptured. The victim was medically
examined on 14.11.2018, two days after the alleged last incident of
sexual assault. However, PW13 clearly stated that there were no
signs of recent sexual intercourse. During cross-examination,
PW13 admitted that in cases of forcible sexual intercourse, injuries
would not heal for at least seven to eight days. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to establish that the accused committed
forcible sexual intercourse between 09.11.2018 and 12.11.2018.
14. To prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the
incident, the prosecution relied on the school leaving certificate and
the extract of the admission register (Exs.P10 and P11), which
indicate her date of birth as 15.07.2002. PW6, the in-charge
Principal of the school, supported the prosecution's case but
admitted that the date of birth entry was not based on a birth
certificate issued by a competent authority. In the absence of such
a document, the school leaving certificate and admission register
extract lack evidentiary value.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2821
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P. Yuvaprakash v.
State, has held as follows:
"It is evident from a conjoint reading of the above provisions that
wherever a dispute arises regarding the age of a person in the
context of being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts must
take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice Act. The three documents, in order of preference, that
must be considered are:
(i) The date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation
or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board, if
available; and in the absence thereof:
(ii) The birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal
authority, or panchayat;
(iii) Only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be
determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age
determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or
the Board."
16. In the present case, the prosecution has not produced
a birth certificate issued by a competent authority, nor subjected
the victim to a radiological or ossification test. Therefore, the Trial
Court's finding that the victim was 16 years, 3 months, and 25 days
old at the time of the incident is erroneous in the absence of valid
documentary evidence.
17. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident except for
the statement of the victim. The victim categorically stated that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2821
accused had forcibly kidnapped her to Yapaladinni village, which is
approximately 20 km away by foot, at around 10:30 p.m. This claim
appears highly improbable, as it is unlikely that the accused could
have forcibly taken the victim on foot for such a long distance at
night without resistance or raising an alarm. Moreover, the victim
has not stated that she objected to the alleged abduction, which
clearly infers that sexual inntercourse was consensual.
18. During cross-examination, the victim admitted that
there were many houses along the route to Yapaladinni village,
which further casts doubt on the claim that she was forcibly taken
without resistance. PW2, the victim's father, is not a relevant
witness, as he did not witness the alleged abduction. Furthermore,
he admitted that he was not sure about the victim's date of birth.
19. Additionally, the victim, during her examination-in-
chief, admitted that her marriage was arranged one year before her
deposition with her mother's brother. The victim's evidence was
recorded on 25.10.2019, while the incident allegedly occurred on
09.11.2018.
20. The Trial Court misread the evidence on record,
leading to the erroneous conviction of the accused. In view of the
above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to establish that the victim was a minor at
the time of the alleged incident. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2821
ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 8.6.2021 passed in Spl.SC POCSO No.03/2019
by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 at
Koppal, is hereby set aside, and the accused is acquitted of the
aforesaid offences.
iii) The bail bond, if any, stands discharged.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
JTR/BKM
Ct:vh
