Karnataka High Court
State By Inspector Of Police vs Ninganna on 2 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18507-DB
CRL.A No. 1402 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1402 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE BY
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
REPTD. BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II.)
AND:
1. NINGANNA
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N S/O CHANDRAPPA,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
2. CHANDRAPPA
S/O BHEEMANNA KOLAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3. SHARANAMMA
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
4. MARILINGA
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18507-DB
CRL.A No. 1402 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. SHARANAKUMARA
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT YERAGOL VILLAGE AND POST,
YADAGIR TALUK, YADAGIR-585201.
6. KAVITHA
W/O KUMARANAIK,
AGED 38 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR SIDDAGANGA PU COLLEGE,
DOMBARAHALLI,
MADANAYAKANAHALLI,
BENGALURU TOWN,
DASUDI UMLANAIKANA TANDA,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
BANNAJE, UDUPI - 576101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5,
SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADV. FOR R6/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1)(3) CR.P.C BY THE SPP
FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD
31.01.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF SPL.II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C
(POCSO) NO.193/2022 ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
354D,376(2)(n),366 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.4,6,12,17 OF
POCSO ACT AND SEC.9,10,11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD
MARRIAGE ACT AND SEC.3(1)(w)(i)(ii) 3(2)(v)OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18507-DB
CRL.A No. 1402 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
State has preferred this appeal against the judgment
of acquittal dated 31st January, 2024 passed in
Spl.C.(POCSO) No.193/2022 by the Special II Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short
hereinafter referred to as "trial Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Hiriyur
Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 376, 366-A read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 8 and 12
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(for short hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act"),
Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006 and Section 3(1)w)(i)(ii) of the Schedule Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
NC: 2025:KHC:18507-DB
HC-KAR
3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 26th July,
2022 at about 2.00 pm, the accused, kidnapped the
victim, with an intention to compel her for marriage
against her will and took her to Ramalingeshwara temple
in Sunkanuru village of Chittapura Taluk on 27th July, 2022
and married her with the assistance of accused 2 to 5. It
is further alleged that on 27th July, 2022, in the house of
Hanumanthappa in Sunkanuru village, accused No.1
committed sexual intercourse upon the victim, who
belongs to Scheduled Caste. Thus, the accused have
committed the aforesaid offences.
4. To prove the case, prosecution in all, examined
21 witnesses as PWs.1 to 21, 32 documents were marked
as Exhibits and 15 material objects were marked as MOs.1
to 15. During the course of cross-examination of PW1,
eight documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D8.
Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court
has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the
NC: 2025:KHC:18507-DB
HC-KAR
impugned judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this
appeal.
5. We have examined the material placed before
us. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim was
minor as on the date of alleged incident and the date of
birth of the victim is 06th April, 2005. To substantiate this,
prosecution has produced Exhibit P23-copy of School
Admission Register (ss±Á¯Á zÁR¯Áw £ÀPÀ®Ä). Prosecution has
also examined PW16-Ravi, Teacher in Government Lower
Primary School, Handiganadu, Hosadurga Taluk. During
his cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that he
does not know, as to on what basis, the victim got
admitted to the school and he was not the Teacher at the
time of admission of victim to the school. He has also
clearly admitted that Exhibit P23 is not the certified copy
of the School Admission Register.
6. PWs.2 and 3-parents of the victim, have not
whispered as to the date of birth or actual age of the
NC: 2025:KHC:18507-DB
HC-KAR
victim as on the date of alleged incident. Investigating
Officer has not collected the birth certificate or the SSLC
Marks card of the victim. Investigating Officer has also
not explained anything for non-production of the above
said documents. Ossification certificate is also not
obtained by the Investigating Officer to ascertain the exact
age of the victim. Observing all these aspects, the trial
Court has rightly held that the prosecution has not
produced the document as required under Section 94 of
Juvenile Justice (Care of Protection of Children) Act, 2015
relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of YUVA PRAKASH v. STATE reported in 2023 SCC
ONLINE SC 846. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove
that the victim was minor as on the date of alleged incident as
defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012. When the
prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was minor as on
the date of alleged incident, it cannot be said that offences
under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act, 2006 can be invoked.
NC: 2025:KHC:18507-DB
HC-KAR
7. With regard to offence punishable under Sections
366-A, 376 and 354-D read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code and offences under the provisions of Schedule Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 are concerned, the victim has clearly deposed in her
evidence that she and accused No.1 were in love with each
other and they were roaming about in different places. Exhibit
P15-medical report issued by the duty Doctor of Government
Hospital, Hiriyur, reveals that the history was given by the
victim that the accused No.1 and victim met as neighbours six
months back and they used to meet once a month. On 26th
July, 2022, the accused No.1 forcibly took the victim to an
unknown village in Yadgir and they got married in a Temple
with the help of family members of the accused. They were
together for two days. They had two times intercourse in two
days. After two days, victim's uncle came and took her to
home. Medical evidence reveals that there is no suggestive
recent sexual assault or exposure. The Forensic Science
Laboratory report also reveals that there is no evidence to say
that the accused No.1 had committed sexual assault on the
victim. No seminal stains were detected in Items No.1, 3, 4
NC: 2025:KHC:18507-DB
HC-KAR
and 5 as per Exhibit P25. Skin tissue was not detected in Item
No.2. There is delay of two days in filing the complaint.
Prosecution has not furnished proper explanation as to delay in
filing the complaint. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence
on record, absolutely there are no cogent, corroborative,
convincing or trustworthy evidence placed by the prosecution.
Taking into consideration all these aspects, the trial Court has
rightly observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. Even on re-evaluation of the entire evidence on
record, we do not find any error, illegality or legal infirmity
in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Resultantly,
appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed at the
stage of Admission itself.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
