Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Srinivasa C on 24 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
CRL.A No. 749 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.749 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ALANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
MYSURU,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
AND:
SRINIVASA .C
S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA,
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/O. NO.91, LINGAMBUDI PALYA,
COURT OF SRI RAMPURA POST,
KARNATAKA MYSURU CITY. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADVOCATE APPEARING AS
AMICUS-CURIAE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.04.2019 PASSED IN
SPECIAL CASE NO.132/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LEARNED
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU IN SO
FAR AS THE IT RELATES TO ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 363, 376 OF IPC
AND SECTION 3 R/W SECTION 4 OF POCSO ACT AND ALSO UNDER
SECTION 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
CRL.A No. 749 of 2020
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
This appeal is filed by the State challenging the
correctness of the judgment dated 05.04.2019 in SC
No.132/2017 on the file of VI Additional District and
Special Judge, Mysuru. The accused faced trial for the
offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC
read with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and Section
9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. By the impugned
judgment, the trial court acquitted the accused of the said
offences and hence this appeal.
2. The first information report was lodged by
PW.8, the mother of the prosecutrix i.e., PW.1. She
stated that on 24.03.2017, when she was about to return
home after finishing the work at a garment factory, she
received a call from her mother-in-law and came to know
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
that her daughter was not found in the house.
Immediately she returned home and searched for her
daughter. She did not get any information. Therefore on
27.03.2017, she gave a report to the police stating that
her daughter was missing. PW.1 and accused were traced
on 30.03.2017. Investigation resulted in accused being
charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.
3. On behalf of the prosecution, 8 witnesses
adduced evidence. Exs.P.1 to P.21 and M.O.1 to M.O.3
were marked by the prosecution. Assessing the evidence,
the trial court recorded findings that PW.1 and the accused
were in love and infact PW.1 put pressure on the accused
to take her away from the house and marry her. PW.8 had
arranged the marriage of PW.1 with another person,
namely, Nagaraju, but PW.1 was not ready to marry him
because of her love affair with the accused. In this
background, both of them got married voluntarily. PW.1
herself stated that she had completed 18 years of age on
the date when the accused married her. It was not a case
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
of abduction. The prosecution has relied on the school
admission register extract issued by the Headmaster. In
the said certificate the date of birth of PW.1 is shown as
17.12.1999, but statement of the girl was that she had
completed 18 years. There was no inducement or threat at
the time when PW.1 went along with accused. In this view,
the prosecution has failed to prove the abduction of the
girl and her being subjected to forcible intercourse by the
accused.
4. We have heard Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned
SPP-II and Sri Rangaswamy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the appellant/State and Sri
N.S.Sampangiramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae for the
respondent/accused.
5. It is the submission of Sri Vijaykumar Majage
and Rangaswamy, that although the evidence of PW.1
shows that she was a consenting party to the act of sexual
intercourse, Ex.P.5-the study certificate shows that the
date of birth of PW.1 was 17.12.1999. PW.1 has also
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
stated that her date of birth was 17.12.1999. This date of
birth is not disputed by the defence. For this reason, as
on 24.03.2017, the age of the girl was 17 years 3 months
and 7 days. That means she had not completed 18 years
of age. Even though there was a consent, minor's consent
was immaterial. The medical evidence clearly discloses
that hymen was not intact. It supports the prosecution
case that the accused subjected the minor girl to sexual
assault. Therefore the trial court went wrong in
appreciating the evidence and in this view the impugned
judgment has to be set aside.
6. Sri N.S.Sampangi Ramaiah submits that the
date of birth of the girl being 17.12.1999 cannot be taken
as correct because PW.3-Headmaster who issued Ex.P.5
has given evidence that PW.1 took admission to the school
for 9th standard during the year 2013-2014. PW.1
discontinued the study when she was in 10th standard.
That means she might have completed 16 years of age in
the year 2015. According to the prosecution, the incident
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
took place in the year 2017. If this evidence is
considered, as on 24.03.2017 the age of PW.1 was more
than 18 years and that is the reason for PW.1 herself
stating that she had completed 18 years of age. Even
when PW.1 gave statement before the Magistrate under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that her age was 18
years. In this view, no offence was committed by the
accused. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion
to acquit the accused. The well reasoned judgment of the
trial court cannot be disturbed.
7. We have considered the arguments and
perused the evidence.
8. Evidence of PW.1 shows that she developed
acquaintance with accused when she was working in a
textile shop. At that time the accused was working as a
mason. Both of them were loving each other. PW.1
herself told the accused that her mother had arranged the
marriage with one Arakere Nagaraju and she was not
willing to marry him. At that time accused advised her
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
that she should marry a boy fixed by the family members
and for this PW.1 replied that she would commit suicide if
accused did not marry her. Thereafter accused advised
her to wait for six months. When the marriage date of
PW.1 with Arakere Nagaraju was nearing, again she asked
the accused that the marriage was to be performed within
a month and if he did not marry her, she would die.
Therefore on 24.03.2017, both of them left the house and
at the time of leaving the house, she carried with her
some jewellary and they got married in a temple. Both of
them lived in the house of the aunt of the accused. She
stated that both of them had sexual intercourse
voluntarily. In the cross-examination she admitted that
her mother had arranged her marriage with another boy
and she married the accused because she had completed
18 years of age. It is needless to say that the evidence of
PW.8-the mother of PW.1 is quite contradictory. That
apart when PW.1 was taken before the Magistrate to give
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she
and accused married voluntarily at Mahadeshwara Temple.
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
But she gave one more statement on 30.03.2017 that
when they were sleeping together, accused wanted to
have physical contact with her and at that time, she told
that he must convince her parents first and then he could
have contact with her. But the accused did not heed to
her request. So far as this statement is concerned, PW.1
has stated in the cross-examination that she had to give
statement like this because she was tutored by her mother
and the police. Ex.P.17 is the report given by the doctor
after examining the girl and it shows that hymen was not
intact and there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse.
And the girl was used to an act like that of sexual
intercourse.
9. It becomes clear that PW.1 herself has stated to
have had intercourse with accused and she has stated that
it was voluntary. Ofcourse, this was supported by Ex.P17-
medical examination report, but the question is about the
age. If the girl was minor below the age of 18 years as on
the date of the incident, her consent was immaterial. So
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
what remains for examination is whether 17.12.1999 can
be considered as correct date of birth of the girl. PW.1 and
PW.8 have stated that the date of birth is 17.12.1999 and
same date is recorded in Ex.P.5. This date of birth cannot
be held to be correct because of statement of PW.3 in the
examination-in-chief that PW.1 took admission to the
school for 9th standard in the year 2013-2014 and
discontinued her studies when she was in 10th standard.
Normally, a boy or girl will have reached the age of 15 or
16 years when he or she comes to the 10th standard. The
date of incident is shown as 24.03.2017. If the girl took
admission for 9th standard during the year 2013-2014, as
on 24.03.2017, it appears that she might have completed
18 years of age. That means the date of birth entered in
the school register does not appear to be correct. It may
be the date given on approximation. Moreover the girl
herself has stated that her mother was tried to arrange
her marriage after she attained 18 years of age.
Therefore there is no clear proof with regard to the age of
the girl. This benefit must go to the accused. Looked in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12311-DB
this view, it is to be held that the trial court has not
committed error in acquitting the accused. We do not find
good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial
Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
10. Rs.15,000/- shall be paid as remuneration to
Sri N.S.Sampangiramaiah, Advocate for the accused for
the services rendered as Amicus Curiae.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
MBM
