Karnataka High Court
Janardhan vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1316 OF 2020 (C)
BETWEEN:
JANARDHAN,
S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS, TOTADA ROAD,
NEAR AMBUJAMMA PARK,
SHANKARNAGARA, MANDYA CITY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LETHIF .B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MANDYA WEST POLICE
STATION, MANDYA
THROUGH THE S P P
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V
Location: High 2. RADHA
Court of W/O RAGHURAM
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 39YEARS,
C/O POORNIMA, 3RD CROSS
SHANKARA NAGAR,
MANDAYA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. MANJUNATH .K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB))
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 23.09.2020 AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.09.2020 PASSED BY THE I
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
CRL.A No. 1316 of 2020
HC-KAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MANDYA IN
SPL.C.NO.227/2018 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 376(2)(I), 506 OF IPC AND SEC.6, 10
OF POCSO ACT AND ETC.,
THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 in Spl.C.No.227/2018 on the file of the
learned First Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya
has preferred this appeal challenging the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2020
convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 341,
376(2)(i) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and
Section 6 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act (for short 'the POCSO Act') and sentencing him to under go
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence
punishable under Section 341 of IPC, undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years and shall pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)
of IPC, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months
for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, undergo
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 10 of
POCSO Act, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case as per prosecution is that,
accused No.1-appellant, who was residing in the ground floor of
the house, wrongfully restrained PW1-the child aged 11 years,
while she was playing in the first floor and committed
aggravated sexual assault by inappropriately touching her
breast and the private part, kissing her and also inserting his
finger into her vagina. PW2 being the mother of the victim girl,
lodged first information as per Ex.P2. Victim was subjected to
medical examination, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.PC
was recorded, where the victim narrated the acts committed by
accused No.1.
3. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused
No.2 the mother of accused No.1 abetted commission of the
offence and harbored accused No.1. The Investigating Officer
after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against
both the accused. The Trial Court took cognizance of the
offences and summoned accused Nos.1 and 2. They have
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16, got marked Exs.P1 to 18
and identified Mos.1 and 2, in support of its contention. The
accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on
record. But have not led any evidence in support of their
defence. However, they got marked portion of the statement of
PW4 as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all
these materials on record, proceeded to convict accused Nos.1
and 2 as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, they have
preferred this appeal. However, during pendency of the appeal,
accused No.2 died and the appeal preferred by her was
dismissed as abated.
4. Heard Sri. Lethif.B., learned counsel for appellant-
accused No.1 and Sri.Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the
materials including the Trial Court records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP for
respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
"Whether the appellant-accused No.1
has made out a case to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the Trial Court?
My answer to the above point is 'partly in the Affirmative'
and pass the following:
REASONS
6. It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused
No.1 was the neighbor of the victim girl, and had committed
aggravated sexual assault on the child aged 11 years, when
she was playing near her house. It is stated that accused had
taken the minor girl on his lap, inserted his finger in her vagina,
squeezed her breast and kissed her. Admittedly, the statement
of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded by the
learned Magistrate as per Ex.P1. The victim is examined as
PW1 and she has narrated the incident and the acts committed
by the appellant. Even though it is suggested that there was an
enmity between the two families, the same cannot be a ground
to dispute the version of the victim girl, who withstood the
cross-examination.
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
7. PW2 is the mother of the victim girl, who lodged the
first information after knowing about the incident. PW3 is the
father of the victim girl. PW4 is the owner of the house, where
the victim and the accused were residing. PW5 is the school
Head Mistress who issued Ex.P5, according to which, the date
of birth of the victim girl is 17.07.2007. Therefore, it is stated
that the victim was aged 11 years as on the date of incident.
PW6 accompanied the victim girl for medical examination. PW7
carried the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)
examination. PW8 accompanied the accused to medical
examination. PWs.9 and 10 are the witnesses to the spot
mahazar Ex.P4. But they have not supported the case of the
prosecution. PW.11 is the Doctor, who examined the accused
and issued the medical certificates as per Exs.P7 to 9. PW12 is
the Doctor, who examined the victim. She admits that FSL
report is negative for commission of the offence. However,
considering the allegations made against accused No.1, it
cannot be expected that there will be any signs of committing
aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl.
8. PW13 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted
investigation initially. PW14 is the Investigating Officer, who
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW15 is
the Police Official, who registered the FIR as per Ex.P18. PW16
had recorded the statement of the victim girl initially. PW1 is
the victim girl, who fully supported the case of prosecution and
it is corroborated by PW2. Other witnesses are only
circumstantial witnesses.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant-accused No.1 is that there was an enmity between
the two families and that led to filing of the false complaint.
The same not been probabilized by any means. Simply because
PW.1 admitted that there used to be quarrel between her
mother and the accused, it cannot be the basis to conclude that
PW2 has chosen to file a false complaint against accused Nos.1
and 2 making serious allegations regarding commission of the
offence under POCSO Act. It also cannot be believed that PW1,
the child had deposed falsely only to support the version of
PW2, even when no such incident had occurred. On the other
hand motive suggested by the accused is a double edged
weapon. It can also be held that in view of such quarrels the
accused had committed the offence against the minor girl.
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
10. From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, I am satisfied
that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per Ex.P5, the age of the
victim was 11 years, as her date of birth was 17.07.2007 and
the incident had occurred on 22.01.2018. Considering the act
committed by accused No.1 against the child, who was aged 11
years, I am of the opinion that accused No.1 has committed the
offence of aggravated sexual assault punishable under Section
10 of POCSO Act and he is liable for conviction.
11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The
Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record
and convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 341,
376(2)(i), 506 of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act
and sentenced him to undergo maximum imprisonment of 10
years for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, even
though under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, accused No.1 is liable
for minimum sentence of 10 years. It is to be noticed that
clause 2(i) of Section 376 of IPC was omitted by Act 22 of 2018
with effect from 21.4.18 but the incident had occurred during
January 2018.
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
12. As per Section 10 of the POCSO Act, accused No.1
could be sentenced to undergo imprisonment of either
description for a term, which shall not be less than 5 years but
which may extend to 7 years only. It is stated that the accused
was apprehended on 23.01.2018 and since then he is in judicial
custody. Prima facie, he has already undergone 7 years of
imprisonment for which, he is entitled for set off. Considering
all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
sentence imposed on accused No.1 could be modified.
13. Considering the nature of allegations and also
taking into consideration the admitted fact that there was
enmity between PWs.2 and accused Nos.1 and 2, I am of the
opinion that accused No.1 could be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and not under
Section 376(2)(i) of IPC. Therefore, he is to be sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. To that extent the order of sentence
passed by the Trial Court is liable to be modified while
confirming the judgment of conviction.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
14. Accordingly, I answer of the above point partly in
the affirmative and proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 23.09.2018 passed in
Spl.C.No.227/2018 on the file of the I Additional
Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya, for the offence
punishable under Sections 341 and 506 of IPC are
confirmed.
(iii) The Judgment of conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and for
section 10 of POCSO Act is confirmed. The appellant
is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with
the default sentence of 1 year for the offence under
section 10 of POCSO Act.
(iv) The substantive sentence shall run
concurrently.
(v) The appellant is entitled for set off for the
period, which he has already undergone sentence.
The chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Mysuru is
directed to release the appellant from custody, if he has already
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19768
HC-KAR
undergone imprisonment for a period of 7 years from the date
of his arrest, subject to deposit of fine amount, if he is not
required to be trained in custody in any other case.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
