Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Govardhan on 3 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
CRL.A No. 556 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYAPURA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
1. SRI. GOVARDHAN
S/O KONDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT CHEELANAHALLI VILLAGE
Digitally signed MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI
by DEVIKA M
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CHIKKABALLAPURA
KARNATAKA KARNATAKA - 562101.
2. SMT. LALITHA W/O LATE GOPI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT MELURU VILLAGE,
JANGAMANAKOTTE HOBLI
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R1;
SMT. GEETHA MISRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
VIDE ORDER DATED 04.07.2024)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
CRL.A No. 556 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 16.01.2024 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.675/2022 ON THE
FILE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
FTSC-I BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU THEREBY
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8 OF POCSO ACT AND TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
16.01.2024 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.675/2022 ON THE COURT OF
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU THEREBY
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8 OF PCOSO ACT BY ALLOWING
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED RESPONDENT FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against acquittal of accused for the
offence punishable under Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act and
also for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 323 and
506 IPC vide judgment dated 16.01.2024 in Special Case
No.675/2022.
2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that
P.W.1 is mother of the victim P.W.2 and specific allegation
against the accused is that on 13.04.2022 at about 3.00 p.m.,
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
accused took the victim girl from Nagarabhavi to a house
situated at Dandadasakodigehally and threatened her to
remove her clothes and touched her chest and caused
harassment to her. As a result, he committed offence under
Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act and offence under Sections
363, 323 and 506 IPC.
3. Based on the complaint of P.W.1, police have
registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the
charge-sheet against the accused. The accused was secured,
he did not plead guilty. Hence, trial was conducted and
prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 17 and got
marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P21.
4. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of
P.W.1, mother of the victim girl P.W.2. The Trial Court having
considered evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses,
taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 and 2
and both of them were not able to give clear evidence
regarding incident, timings as well as causing of threat. Hence,
the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that it appears that
P.W.2 was tutored by P.W.1, since there were number of cases
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
pending against the accused and P.W.1 and she has the habit
of registering POCSO cases against other accused persons.
P.W.1 also categorically admitted that there are number of
cases pending between the accused and P.W.1. Hence, she has
given evidence before the Court and Ex.P3-statement of victim
girl itself gives room for doubting the case of prosecution, since
P.W.2 also categorically says that she did not know the date of
incident, vehicle number in which she was taken. Hence,
benefit of doubt is given in favour of the accused. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, present appeal is filed
by the appellant-State.
5. Learned Additional SPP for the appellant-State
would vehemently contend that Trial Court committed an error
in appreciating evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and evidence of both
P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborates the case of the prosecution and the
Trial Court has not given clear finding in respect of evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2, though they have supported the case of the
prosecution. She would vehemently contend that age of P.W.1
is proved by the marks list produced as Ex.P17 which discloses
the date of birth of the victim girl as 13.06.2006. She would
further contend that statement of P.W.2 has not been
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
discredited, who categorically states as to how an incident has
taken place, even though other witnesses are not important
witnesses and P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically depose as to how an
incident has occurred, but instead Trial Court committed an
error in coming to the conclusion that evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2
are not acceptable. She also brought to notice of this Court
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and contend that there is
corroboration with regard to the incident is concerned. Hence,
it requires interference of this Court.
6. The Amicus Curie, who appears on behalf of
respondent No.1/accused would contend that Trial Court while
considering the material on record rightly comes to the
conclusion that P.W.1 might have tutored P.W.2 and rightly
observed that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, she has
admitted that there are number of cases pending between
herself and accused. She also would contend that accused is
not husband of P.W.1 and P.W.1 had indulged in marrying
many persons and was also having the habit of lodging POCSO
complaint against other accused persons and admitted that
earlier in 2017 case was registered and one more case was
registered in 2019 against respondent No.1 and two cases are
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
registered against respondent No.1. Having considered material
on record, she would contend that Trial Court has not
committed any error. She would further contend that even
though victim was not subjected to sexual harassment, she has
refused to subject herself for medical examination. Hence, it
does not require any interference.
7. In reply to the argument of learned Amicus Curie
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/accused, learned
Additional SPP for the appellant-State would contend that
question of subjecting the victim for medical examination does
not arise, since the victim was not subjected to penetration or
sexual act and the only allegation against the accused is that
he had touched chest of the victim.
8. Having heard learned Additional SPP for the
appellant-State as well as learned Amicus Curie for respondent
No.1 and also considering the reasons assigned by the Trial
Court as well as the grounds urged in the appeal and also
submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2, the points
that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error
in not accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2
with regard to the incident is concerned and
any error is committed in discrediting the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and it requires
interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i)
9. Having heard learned Additional SPP for the
appellant-State and learned Amicus Curie for respondent No.1-
accused and also considering the charges leveled against him,
specific charges against the accused is that on 13.04.2022 at
about 3.00 p.m., he took the victim girl from Nagarabhavi to a
house situated at Dandadasakodigehally and threatened her to
remove her clothes and touched her chest and subjected her
for sexual harassment. Learned Additional SPP for the
appellant-State would vehemently contend that very allegation
made in the complaint would attract Sections 363, 323 and 506
IPC, since he had slapped her and intimidated the victim girl
and with regard to sexual act, it attracts Sections 5 and 8 of
POCSO Act, since he misbehaved and caused sexual
harassment. Having considered the grounds urged in the
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
appeal and also considering the fact that P.W.1 is mother of the
victim and she has categorically deposed that her husband
deserted 9 years back and subsequently, he passed away. But,
the victim girl was born in the wedlock for the first husband,
but P.W.1 has married the accused and all were residing
together and on the date of incident, she had been to Bagepalli
to attend the Court and accused had taken her to a farm house
and caused threat and subjected her for sexual harassment.
10. P.W.2 is the victim girl, who also deposed in line of
evidence of P.W.1. The Trial Court also taken note of evidence
that P.W.2 alone is the eye witness and competent witness to
the case, though she is a minor. The Trial Court also evaluated
the material on record and also taken care that while
appreciating the evidence of child witness, the Court must be
careful and taken note of admissions given by both P.Ws.1 and
2. Admittedly, there were disputes between the accused and
P.W.1 and the same is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, who
categorically deposed that there are number of cases pending
between her and accused. It is also important to note that she
admits that she gave complaint against Padma and others also.
P.W.1 also admits that one more complaint was given against
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
Santhosh and Nikhil and POCSO case is registered against them
in 2017. She has also lodged complaint against the accused in
2019. When such complaint was given in 2019 also, what
made P.W.2 to accompany accused, no proper explanation on
the part of the prosecution and P.W.1 categorically admits that
accused had already left her and case was pending against him,
since she had lodged the complaint and she was also not able
to give specific date of the incident, mobile number of the
accused and also vehicle number. Though the evidence of
P.W.2-victim girl is in line of evidence of P.W.1, she
categorically admits registration of case against Santhosh and
Nikhil, who are also relatives of accused in the year 2017 and
she also categorically admits that she cannot specify the date
on which the complaint was given in 2017 and earlier complaint
given against the accused in 2019. She was also unable to give
the details of vehicle number, what is the distance between
Nagarbhavi and farm house and so also does not know the date
of incident and when mahazar was drawn. But, only says that
at the time of drawing mahazar, her mother and police were
there and does not know the timings of mahazar and fails to
describe the place where mahazar was conducted and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
categorically says that police have not recorded her statement,
but she has signed two mahazars.
11. Having considered these answers elicited from
P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that there were earlier cases between
accused and P.W.1 and one more case was registered against
this appellant in 2019 and claim that both of them were living
together. But, the fact that case was registered against this
accused is not in dispute. It is very difficult to believe the case
of prosecution and when already case was registered against
this accused in 2019, the victim has accompanied the accused
in the motorcycle on the date of incident in the year 2022,
though she had the knowledge of her mother lodging complaint
against him and cases are pending before the Court. When
such answers are elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 and 2, I do
not find any error committed by the Trial Court in acquitting the
accused. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in the same line, but it
is a clear that P.W.1 has tutored P.W.2, since P.W.1 is having
animosity against the accused and both P.Ws.1 and 2 are not
able to give the date of incident and on what date mahazar was
conducted and even victim says that her statement was not
recorded by the police. When such answer is elicited from the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9054
mouth of P.W.1, I do not find any error committed by the Trial
Court in giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and
acquitting him for the offence. Hence, I answer point No.(i) as
'negative'.
Point No.(ii)
12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The Registry is directed to pay the fee of
Rs.5,000/- to the Amicus Curie, who appeared
on behalf of respondent No.1-accused for her
service rendered in the case.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
