Karnataka High Court
Paramanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290
CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200167 OF 2017 (C) C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2017
IN CRL.A.NO.200167/2017:
BETWEEN
PARAMANNA S/O BASAWARAJ SILINGERI
AGED ABOUT: 22 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O HORATUR VILLAGE, SHAHAPUR TALUKA,
DIST.YADGIRI. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.B. SANGOLAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by THROUGH WADAGERA POLICE STATION, TQ.SHAHAPUR,
SREEDHARAN DIST.YADGIRI. REPRESENTED BY ADDL.SPP
BANGALORE SUSHMA
LAKSHMI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: High Court of BENCH AT KALABURAGI. ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT /ACCUSED PRAYING THAT THIS
HON_BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: SET ASIDE THE ORDER
OF CONVICTION DATED:01.04.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN SPL.CASE.(POCSO)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290
CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017
HC-KAR
NO.1/2016 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 354,376(D), 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.808/2017:
BETWEEN
MALAPPA S/O BHIMANNA VAGGAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE
TALUKA SHAHAPUR DISTRICT:YADGIRI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THROUGH WADAGERA POLICE STATION
YADGIRI ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP )
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 01.04.2017
PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI IN
SPL.C(P.O.C.S.O.)NO.1/2016 - AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/
ACCUSED NO.2 OF THE CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354,376-D AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
07.04.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT
BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290
CRL.A No. 200167 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 808 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
These two appeals have been filed by the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated
01.04.2017 in Special Case (POCSO) No.1/2016 pending on the
file of District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri.
2. The ranks of the parties will be considered henceforth as
that of Trial Court for convenience.
Factual matrix of the case:
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 12.09.2015 at
about 2.00 P.M. C.W.1/victim had gone to attend nature call in
the open field situated near her house. The accused Nos.1 and
2 who are the residents of the same village stated to have
kidnapped her and took her to a dilapidated shed which belongs
to Mr.Ayyappa Sahukar.
4. It is further stated that the accused No.1 stated to have
committed sexual assault on her and thereafter he informed
accused No.2 to have sexual intercourse with the victim. When
the accused No.2 went to have sexual intercourse with the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290
HC-KAR
victim, she resisted and pushed accused No.2 by biting his right
hand and thereafter she cried for help.
5. On hearing the said hue and cry, C.W.12 who is the son
of her uncle went to the said place. After seeing him, accused
Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the place. The victim and C.W.12
after discussing the matter with the family members lodged a
complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2. Based on the said
complaint, the respondent Police have registered a case against
accused Nos.1 and 2. After conducting the investigation,
submitted the charge sheet.
6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined 17 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.17 and got marked
20 documents as EX-P.1 to P.20 and also identified 4 material
objects MO.1 to MO.4.
7. Heard Sri.S.B.Sangolagi, learned counsel for appellant /
accused No.1 in Crl.A No.200167/2017, Sri. and Sri.Ganesh
Naik, learned counsel for appellant / accused No.2 in Crl.A
No.808/2017 and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State in both cases.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290
HC-KAR
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial
Court is perverse, illegal and against the evidence on record.
Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
9. It is further submitted that the evidence of the
prosecutrix appears to be tainted and unbelievable for the
reason that, even though she stated in her evidence that,
accused No.1 had committed sexual intercourse on her and an
attempt was made by accused No.2, however, she is stated to
have bit the right hand of the accused No.2. However, P.W.7-
Doctor, who examined both accused Nos.1 and 2 did not notice
such biting marks on the right hand of accused No.2. Further,
the Doctor, who conducted examination of the victim, has been
examined as P.W.14. According to P.W.14, the victim had not
been subjected to recent sexual intercourse. Such being the
fact, the evidence of P.W.1, cannot be construed as 'sterling
witness'. However, the Trial Court ignored in considering the
said aspect and relied on the evidence of P.W.1 even without
corroboration of independent witness which appears to be
erroneous.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290
HC-KAR
10. When the evidence of P.W.1 who is the victim of the case,
is not believable conviction in respect of offence under Section
376-D of IPC cannot be sustained.
11. As regards, Section 354 of IPC is concerned, the said
ingredients would be attracted only when the modesty of the
women is outraged. On the given set of facts and also evidence
on record would indicate that none of the independent witness
have stated about the outraging modesty of the victim.
Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court in recording the
conviction for the offence under Section 354 of IPC also cannot
be sustained..
12. As regards Section 506 of IPC is concerned, again the
entire case is depending on the evidence of related witnesses.
None of the independent witnesses have spoken about criminal
intimidation. In the absence of evidence regarding criminal
intimidation, recording the conviction for the said offence is
erroneous and not proper.
13. On over all reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and also
other evidence relating to medical examination and also
radiological tests etc., it can be inferred that the age of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290
HC-KAR
victim was between 16 to 18 years as on the date of alleged
incident and she was married. Even assuming that she had
been subjected to sexual assault, no external injuries were
found during the examination. Further, there are some
inconsistencies in respect of injury caused to the accused No.2
and also to the victim. Having considered the said
inconsistencies, it is appropriate to opine that the Trial Court
has committed error in recording the conviction in respect of
the offences stated supra.
14. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 01.04.2017 passed in Special
Case (POCSO) No.1/2016 by the District and
Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, is set aside.
iii) The appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 are
acquitted for the offences punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3290
HC-KAR
Section 354, 376(D), 506 read with Section
34 of IPC.
iv) Bail bonds executed if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
NM
