Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka Through Mudhol P.S vs Sanna Narasappa S/O Anjalappa Palya on 1 July, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200093 OF 2015
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MUDHOL P.S.
RPTED. BY ITS
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SIDDALING P. PATIL. ADDL SPP.,)
Digitally signed
AND:
by KHAJAAMEEN
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH
SANNA NARASAPPA
COURT OF S/O ANJALAPPA PALYA
KARNATAKA
AGE 26 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O BANDENPALLI,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.C.JAKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1) & (b) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO (a) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.04.2015 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2015
HC-KAR
KALABURGI, IN SESSIONS CASE.NO.27/2014 WHEREBY
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 363, 366, 324, 376, 511 AND SECTIONS 3, 4, 7 AND 8
POCSO ACT. (b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 17.04.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN
SESSIONS CASE.NO.27/2014 WHEREBY ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 366,
324, 376, 511 AND SECTIONS 3, 4, 7 AND 8 POCSO ACT.(c)
CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 363, 366, 324, 376, 511 AND SECTIONS
3, 4, 7 AND 8 POCSO ACT.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
This appeal is preferred by the State against the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi dated
17.04.2015 in Sessions Case No.27/2014.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the learned Sessions
Judge has acquitted the accused of the offences
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
punishable under Section 363, 366, 324, 376(2)(i) of IPC
and Section 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Heard the learned Additional SPP for the State
and the learned counsel for respondent/accused and
perused the material on record.
4. It is the case of prosecution that on 19.04.2014
at about 10.00 p.m., in Bandepalli Village within the limits
of Mudhol Police Station, the accused kidnapped the minor
victim, aged about 9 years from the lawful custody of her
parents, while she was sleeping on the right side of the
Katta of lord Dyavamma (Urudmai) temple, with an
intention to commit forcible sexual intercourse and took
her towards the land of Shyamappa situated by the side of
Halla in Bandepalli Village, fell on her and bit her nose and
lips, caused injuries and removed her underwear, touched
her private part and thereby committed the charged
offences.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
5. The learned counsel for respondent has not
disputed that the victim was a minor as on the date of
incident. The prosecution has relied on the School
certificate issued by PW.12 - Headmaster of the School,
wherein, the victim pursued her studies. As per Ex.P8, the
date of birth of the victim is 18.08.2005 and therefore, she
was aged about 9 years.
6. The incident according to the prosecution took
place on 19.04.2014 at about 11.30 p.m. In the complaint
-Ex.P1 lodged by the victim's father, examined as PW.1,
he has stated that on 18.04.2014 there was a marriage
function in his house and all his relatives had come for the
said function. On 19.04.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., he
along with his minor daughter and other family members
slept on the katta of Dyavammagudi. At about 00.10 hrs
on 20.04.2014, his daughter came weeping. His cousin
Somashekhara, mother- Gowramma (PW.5), brother-
Ravindra (PW.6) and his sister-in-law Umadevi (PW.7) also
got up. They saw his daughter had sustained bleeding
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
injuries in her mouth and bite marks on her nose. On
enquiry, she informed them that while she was sleeping
some one came and lifted and took her towards the land
of one Venkatappa and on the pathway he bit her nose,
lips and put his hand in her private part and spoiled her
and when she screamed, he ran away from the spot. It is
stated in Ex.P1 that complainant and others took the
victim to Sedam Government Hospital for treatment.
7. PW.14 - Doctor has deposed in his evidence
that on 20.04.2014 at about 2.30 a.m., victim's father and
others brought the victim girl to the hospital for treatment
with a history of assault and rape and on examination he
found the following injuries:
1. Abrasion over tip measuring 1 x 1 cm, red.
2. Abrasion over right face near right eye 1 x 1
cm, red.
3. Abrasion over right nexk, 1 x 2 cm, red (nail
prick)
4. Swollen upper lip, red.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
5. Vaginal tear 2 cm inner part side inflamed
vagina middle part. No local stain.
He has issued the medical certificate as per Ex.P11.
8. PW.18 - PI, on receiving the MLC intimation,
visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 as
per Ex.P1. He registered a case against unknown person
for offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 324, 376
r/w 511 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act,
2012 and forwarded the FIR - Ex.P15 to the Court.
Thereafter, he conducted the spot mahazar - Exs.P2 and
P3. On 22.04.2014, he once again visited the hospital and
recorded the statement of the victim.
9. On 23.04.2014, the accused was arrested and
his medical examination was conducted by PW.15, who
issued the report as per Ex.P12.
10. The statements of other witnesses were
recorded by PW.18. The statement of one Ramesh was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., marked as Ex.P10.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
On completion of investigation, PW.18 filed the charge
sheet.
11. It is the specific case of prosecution that on
19.04.2014, when the victim girl was sleeping in front of
her house, on the katta of Dyavammagudi, along with her
parents and other relatives, the accused kidnapped her
towards the land of one Shyamappa, wherein he bit her
nose, lips and sexually assaulted her and put his hand in
her private part and thereby committed the charged
offences.
12. The incident has taken place during night hours
at about 11.30 p.m. In Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated that the
victim girl came weeping and when he enquired, she
informed him and others that some unknown person took
her and assaulted her sexually. Admittedly, the FIR is
registered against unknown person. On 22.04.2014, when
PW.18 visited the hospital and recorded the statement of
the victim, she is alleged to have named the accused as
the one who committed the offence. In Ex.P1, it is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
nowhere stated that the victim has revealed the name of
the accused. The description of the accused given was that
he was wearing banyan, lungi and he was speaking in
telugu and kannada language. It is stated that she
informed him and others that she would identify the
accused if she see him. However, it is not forthcoming
from the evidence of PW.18 as to how the victim revealed
the name of the accused even before his arrest and even
before she identified him. Admittedly, the accused was
arrested on 23.04.2014 i.e., after the statement of the
victim was recorded.
13. Apart from the evidence of PW.2 i.e., the victim
girl, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs.1, 5
to 9 and PW.16. Among the said witnesses PW.8 has
turned hostile.
14. Before discussing the evidence of PW.2 i.e., the
victim girl, it is necessary to appreciate the evidence of
other material witnesses whom the prosecution is placing
reliance. None of the other witnesses including PW.1 have
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
seen the accused either kidnapping the victim or
committing the offence. A careful perusal of their
evidence goes to show that they have given their
statements on the basis of the information given by the
victim - PW.2. Apart from narrating what the victim has
informed, they have not specifically mentioned the name
of accused. On the other hand, from their evidence it is
clear that when the victim narrated about the incident, she
was not aware of the identity of the accused. It can only
be gathered from their evidence that after the victim
narrated about the incident and noticing certain injuries,
they took her to the Hospital wherein, she was given
treatment. Further, from the evidence of PW.15 and the
medical report at Ex.P11, it can seen that the victim was
infact given treatment for the injuries sustained by her.
15. In her evidence, victim girl - PW.2 has deposed
that on 19.04.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., she was sleeping
on the katta of Dyavammagudi along with her father,
grandmother, uncle and brother. She woke up and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
realized that someone had kidnapped her. He bit her nose
and lips and put his hand in her private part etc., and
when she screamed he ran away from the spot. For the
first time in the Court, she has identified the accused as
the one who committed the offence. She has nowhere
stated that the accused was shown to her after his arrest
and she has identified him.
16. In the cross-examination conducted by the
defence, PW.2 has admitted that at the time of incident
there was no electricity, which we also find from Ex.P1-
complaint, and it was dark and therefore, she could not
see the clothes worn by the accused. She has admitted
that since it was dark she was not aware as to who
kidnapped her etc.
17. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to
mention that in the FIR, the name of the accused is not
mentioned, on the other hand, FIR was registered against
unknown person. The incident took place in the night
hours. The witnesses have admitted that it was dark as
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
there was no electricity. The victim herself has deposed in
her evidence that she has not identified the person who
kidnapped her as it was dark and she could not see the
clothes worn by him. When such is the case, it is not
forthcoming as to how the victim revealed the name of the
accused when her statement was recorded on 22.04.2014,
even prior to the arrest of the accused. The accused was
not shown to the victim after his arrest. She has identified
the accused for the first time in the Court. In that view of
the matter, the evidence of the victim - PW.2 cannot be
accepted to connect the accused with the crime.
18. It is the contention of the learned Additional
SPP that the accused has confessed before PW.16 having
committed the offence and the said witness has given his
statement as per Ex.P10, recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., and also supported the case of prosecution. He
has therefore contended that it is an important piece of
evidence which would corroborate the evidence of PW.2.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
19. PW.16 has deposed that on 19.04.2014 at
about 8-8.30 p.m., he and the accused were sitting and
chatting near the Government School. Thereafter, the
accused went towards his house, situated near
Dyavammagudi and on the next day evening, accused met
him and told that he kidnapped the victim girl.
20. A perusal of the evidence of PW.16 shows that
on the following day of the incident, accused confessed
before him having committed the offence. However, he
did not disclose the same to anyone in the village or the
Police, even though a case was registered on the very next
day.
21. PW.18- I.O., has stated that the statement of
PW.16 was recorded on 29.06.2014, i.e., after more than
2 months from the date of incident, which is after the
arrest of accused. He has admitted in the cross-
examination that PW.16 has not informed about the
accused revealing to him about the incident, to any one in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
the village. The evidence of PW.16 therefore, does not
inspire the confidence of the Court.
22. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence and
material on record, though we find that the prosecution
has established the fact that the victim, a minor girl
sustained certain injuries on the night intervening 19 and
20.04.2014 and she narrated about the sexual assault
committed on her, we find that there is no cogent,
convincing and acceptable evidence placed on record to
establish the charges levelled against the accused. The
reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for
acquitting the accused is based on appreciation of the
evidence and material on record. This being an appeal
preferred against the judgment of acquittal, no compelling
reasons are forthcoming to reverse the said finding.
Accordingly, the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3550-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
HB
JLR
