State Of Karnataka vs Santosh S/O. Neelappa Mayannavar
2025 Latest Caselaw 273 Kant

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Santosh S/O. Neelappa Mayannavar on 2 June, 2025

                                                   1          CRL.A.NO.100337/2017
                                                          c/w CRL.A.NO.100063/2018


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
                                DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                                  THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100337/2017
                                                  C/W
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100063/2018

                      IN CRL.A.NO.100337/2017:

                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT. ANNAPURNA,
                      W/O SHIVAPPA RITTI,
                      AGED 41 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
                      R/O SUTAGATTI, TQ: KALGHATAGI,
                      DIST: DHARWAD.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by   (BY SRI. B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI             AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             1.     SANTOSH,
                             S/O NEELAPPA MAYANNAVAR,
                             AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: TILES WORK,
                             R/O. SUTAGATTI, TQ: KALGHATAGI,
                             DIST: DHARWAD.

                      2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                             THROUGH KALGHATAGI POLICE,
                             REPRESENTED BY
                             STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                             HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                             DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

                      (BY SRI. T.R. PATIL AND D.S. BETAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
                              2           CRL.A.NO.100337/2017
                                     c/w CRL.A.NO.100063/2018


   SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R-2)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 26.08.2017
PASSED IN SPL.S.C.NO.12 OF 2016 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354(A), 306 OF IPC
AND UNDER SECTION 8 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT No.1/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 354(A), 306 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 8 OF
POCSO ACT 2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

IN CRL.A.NO.100063/2018:

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
P.I.KALAGHATAGI POLICE STATION,
KALAGHATAGI,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)

AND:

SANTOSH,
S/O NEELAPPA MAYANNAVAR,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: TILES WORK,
R/O. SUTAGATTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI.
                                              ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND
                              3           CRL.A.NO.100337/2017
                                     c/w CRL.A.NO.100063/2018


AT SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
26.08.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD IN SPL.S.C.NO.12/2016 AND TO CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 354(A) AND 306 OF IPC AND SECTION 8 OF THE POCSO
ACT.

     THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
16.12.2024/19.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)

These two appeals are filed against the judgment and

order passed by the trial Court, acquitting accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 306 of IPC and

Section 8 of POCSO Act.

2. While Crl.A.No.100337/2017 is filed by the

complainant, Crl.A.No.100063/2018 is filed by the State.

3. Since these two appeals are arising out of the

same judgment and order and involve common discussion,

they are clubbed together and decided by a common order.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred

to by their ranks before the trial Court.

5. A charge sheet came to be filed against accused

alleging that on 02.01.2016 at 04.00 p.m, when deceased

prosecutrix, aged 17 years went to answer natures call in the

land, accused knowing that she is a minor, dragged her by

gagging her mouth, laid her on the ground and attempted to

rape her. Hearing her cries when her father came to the

rescue of the prosecutrix, accused runaway from the spot.

Unable to bear the humiliation, on the next day at 06.00

a.m, prosecutrix dozed herself with kerosene and set on fire.

Though immediately she was rushed to the hospital, while

undergoing treatment she died on 14.01.2016 at 12.45 a.m

and thereby accused has committed the above offences.

6. Complainant is the mother of prosecutrix. She is

not an eye witness to the incident. She lodged the complaint

as narrated by the prosecutrix. In the complaint, she stated

that hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, her cousin

Vijayalaxmi and Shobha came to the spot and on finding

them accused runaway. It is stated in the complaint that

fearing for the reputation of prosecutrix they did not disclose

this fact to anyone. But, they brought this fact to the notice

of the father of accused, who promised reprimand the

accused. However, on the next day at 06.00 a.m, the

complainant went to answer nature's call. By the time she

returned home, she found deceased with burn injuries

outside the house and her relatives Ramalinga and Sangappa

had doused the fire. Immediately, deceased was rushed to

KIMS Hospital Hubballi.

7. Based on the complaint, the concerned police

registered the case in Cr.No.04/2016 and taken up

investigation. The accused was arrested. Later he was

released on bail. After completing the investigation, charge

sheet is filed by the concerned police against the accused for

the offences punishable and Sections 354-A and 306 of IPC

and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

8. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. In order to prove the allegations against the

accused, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1

to 15, Ex.P1 to 22 and MOs-1 and 2.

10. During the course of a statement under Section

313 of Cr.P.C accused has denied the incriminating evidence

led by the prosecution.

11. Accused has not led any defence evidence.

12. Vide the impugned judgment and order the trial

Court acquitted the accused by holding that the prosecution

has failed to prove the allegations against accused to beyond

reasonable doubts.

13. Aggrieved by the same, the State as well as the

complainant have filed the appeals contending that the

same is contrary to law, facts and evidence placed on record,

besides being arbitrary. The reasons assigned are illegal,

erroneous. The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is

not in accordance with law and as such resulted in

miscarriage of justice. Based on the evidence, the trial Court

ought to have held that the allegation against accused are

proved and convicted him. In the dying declaration, the

prosecutrix has clearly implicated the accused and the

testimony of PW-12 Halappa who has recorded the dying

declaration prove the same. The allegations against accused

are proved through the evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 11 who are

witnesses to the incident. The conclusions arrived at and

findings given by the trial Court are contrary to the evidence

on record and as such perverse. During the course of his

statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has not

offered any explanation. In the light of overwhelming

evidence led by the prosecution, it is a case for conviction

and hence the appeals.

14. In support of his argument, learned counsel for

complainant has relied upon the decision in Laxman Vs. State

of Maharashtra (Laxman)1

(2002)6 SCC 710

15. On the other hand, learned counsel representing

the accused has supported the judgment and order passed

by the trial Court. He would submit that there was rivalry

between the family of complainant and accused. The

deceased was in love with accused and it was opposed by her

family members. When she insisted upon marrying the

accused, in a fit of anger, the father of prosecutrix dozed

kerosene and set her on fire. In order to escape from the

consequences, a false complaint is filed by setting up PWs-3,

4 and 11 as eye witnesses. However, their testimony is not

trustworthy and reliable. The contradictions in their

testimony is not reconcilable. There is inordinate delay in

filing the complaint and the same is not explained by the

prosecution. Neither the Doctor who treated the deceased

nor the one who was allegedly present when the dying

declaration was recorded are examined. In the light of the

same, the trial Court has rightly rejected the case of the

prosecution and acquitted the accused and pray to dismiss

the appeals.

16. In support of his argument, learned counsel for

accused has relied upon the decision in Ramesh and Anr. Vs.

State of Karnataka (Ramesh)2

17. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and

perused the record.

18. The fact that as on the date of the incident

prosecutrix was a minor is not seriously disputed by the

accused. PWs-1 and 11 who are the parents of the deceased

have deposed that as on the date of incident, she was aged

17 years. Their evidence reveal that, about one year back,

she had completed her SSLC. PW-1 has specifically deposed

that after finishing SSLC, prosecutrix was staying in her

grandparents house. She had returned to her parents house

about two days prior to the date of incident.

19. PW-14 Pavadeppa Myageri is the Headmaster of

Government High school, Bagadageri, where she was

Crl.A.No.1467/2012 Dt: 18.09.2024

studying. He has deposed that as per the school records, the

date of birth of the prosecutrix was 28.02.1998 and based on

it, he has issued the birth certificate as per Ex.P12. Ex.P13 is

the register and the relevant portion in page No.63 at serial

No. 307 is marked as Ex.P13(a). The admission register is

also produced as per Ex.P15 and its certified copy is marked

as Ex.P16. These documents coupled with the evidence of

PW-14 prove that, the date of birth of prosecutrix was

20.02.1998 and as on the date of the incident, she was aged

17 years, a minor and as such the provisions of POCSO Act

are applicable.

20. It is the definite case of the prosecution that on

02.01.2016 at 04.00 p.m, when the prosecutrix was in the

land answering nature's call, accused came there, gagged

her mouth with his hands and dragged her towards interior

portion, fell her on the ground and was attempting to rape

her. Hearing the sound cousin sisters of complainant PW-3

Shobha and PW-4 Vijayalakshmi called the father of

prosecutrix i.e., PW-11 Shivappa. When PW-11 Shivappa

went to the rescue of prosecutrix and caught hold of the

accused, he escaped and ran away. PW-11 brought

prosecutrix to the house and her mother i.e., complainant

came to know about the incident. According to the

prosecution PWs-3, 4 and 11 are the witnesses to the

accused attempting to rape the prosecutrix.

21. It is pertinent to note that PW-10 Yallappa

Mayannavar is the brother of complainant and father of PWs-

3 and 4. He had taken the land on crop sharing basis where

the incident dated 02.01.2016 took place. His evidence

reveal that at the time of the said incident he was not

present in the village. During the cross-examination, he has

deposed that on that day, he along with his wife and four

children had gone to Vittalapur Jatra. When suggested that

PWs-3 and 4 were also gone with him to the Jatra and they

were not present at the spot, he has stated that on the day,

both girls were having school and he did not want them to

miss the school, and therefore he did not take them. It is

pertinent to note that at the time of incident, these girls were

aged around 11 and 12 years and it is doubtful whether their

parents would have left them behind while themselves going

to the Jatra along with their other 3 children.

22. This doubt would arise in the light of the fact that

while PW-3 deposed that on the date of incident, both she

and her elder sister i.e., PW-4 Vijayalakshmi did not attend

the school. On the other hand, PW-4, Vijayalakshmi has

deposed that on the date of incident, both she and PW-3

Shobha attended the school from 08.00 a.m to 1.00 p.m.

The contradiction in the evidence of PWs-3 and 4 is glaring

and it creates doubt whether they were present at the place

of incident. If at all their father did not take them to the Jatra

for the reason that he did not want them to miss the school,

it is doubtful whether really these girls did not attend the

school as deposed by PW-3 Shobha or attended the classes

and were free by 1.00 p.m, as deposed by PW-4

Vijayalakshmi. On the other hand, whether they were also

with their parents attending the Jatra and were not available

at the spot when the incident dated 02.01.2016 took place.

23. It is pertinent to note that 02.01.2016 was a

Saturday and in all probability, if the girls attended the

morning school, by the time incident took place, they would

have returned home. Therefore, the proper course available

to the investigating officer was to secure attendance register

and prove that on the date of incident, these two girls

attended the school, but by 4.00 p.m, they were back at the

village and they did not go with their parents to the Jatra.

24. So far as incident dated 02.01.2016 is concerned,

PWs-3 and 4 have deposed on that day they went to the land

around 4.00 p.m. PW-3 was scaring away birds and PW-4

was harvesting beans. The prosecutrix was also with them.

She went to answer nature's call and suddenly accused came

there and covering the mouth of prosecutrix, he started

dragging her away. Hearing the commotion they rushed and

found accused trying to rape the prosecutrix. PW-3 has

stated that PW-11 Shivappa the father of prosecutrix was

already present in the land and he was answering nature's

call and hearing her cries, he rushed the spot and caught

hold of the accused, but he managed to run away. In this

regard, PW-4 has deposed that when accused was dragging

the prosecutrix and she was crying for help, she called PW-

11 and he came to the spot and caught hold of the accused,

but he managed to run away.

25. With regard to the said incident, in his

examination-in-chief PW-11 has deposed that at around

03.00 p.m, he was sleeping inside the temple and in order to

relief himself, he went to the land and heard voice of a girl.

When he rushed to the spot, he found his daughter on the

ground and accused had fallen on her and when he

intervened, accused assaulted him and ran away and he

brought the prosecutrix to the house. PW-11 has specifically

stated that except he and the prosecutrix no other person

was present in the land when the incident took place. While

recording his evidence, the trial Court has made a note that

despite the prosecutor persistently questioning the witness

as to what exactly accused was doing when he saw him, the

witness has not given any answer.