Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Prashanthkumar on 26 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12741-DB
CRL.A No. 198 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH 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. 198 OF 2019
Between:
State of Karnataka
By Devaraja Police Station,
Mysuru City,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001.
...Appellant
(By Sri Harish Ganapathy, HCGP)
And:
1. Prashanthkumar
S/o Mahadeva
Aged about 23 years,
Digitally signed R/o Devagowdanakoppalu Village
by VEERENDRA Pandavapura Taluk
KUMAR K M
Mandya District-571401.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. Raveendra V
S/o Late M.P.Vasu
Aged about 36 years,
R/o No.77, Gollageri
Chamaraja Mohall
Mysuru-570001.
3. Smt. Mahalakshmi
W/o Balakrishna
Aged about 30 years,
R/o No.2124, 6th Cross,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12741-DB
CRL.A No. 198 of 2019
6th Main, Kumaraswamy Layout,
II Stage, Bengaluru City-560078
...Respondents
(By Sri S.Manjunath, Advocate for R3 (Absent);
Sri B.N.Anjan Kumar, Advocate for R1 & R2 (Absent),
Sri C.Lingaraju, Advocate for R1 (Absent),
Sri Kumara K.G., Advocate for R2 (Absent))
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C
praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 06.08.2018 passed by the VI Additional
District and Special Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.386/2014
acquitting Accused No.1/Respondent No.1 for the offences
p/u/s 366, 376 of IPC and sections 3, 4, 17 of POCSO Act and
acquitting the Accused No.2 and 3/Respondent No.2 and 3 for
the offence p/u/s 366 r/w 114 of IPC and Section 17 of POCSO
Act.
This Criminal Appeal, coming on for 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 against acquittal judgment
passed in S.C.No.386/2014 on the file of VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.
Three accused persons faced trial for the offences
punishable under Sections 366 and 376 read with
Section 114 of IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of the
NC: 2025:KHC:12741-DB
POCSO Act. The trial court by its judgment
acquitted the accused of all of the offences.
2. The prosecution case is about subjecting
PW3 to forcible sexual intercourse. Her age
according to prosecution was below 18 years and
therefore the provisions of POCSO Act were
invoked.
3. The incident projected is that PW3 had
failed in the first year PUC examination and
therefore she was little bit upset. On 06.07.2014
at 06.30pm she left her house and while going in
front of Marimallappa College, accused No.1 met
her. She told him that she was upset because of
PUC result. Then accused No.1 told that he would
take her to his friend's house. Thereafter both
PW3 and accused No.1 came to the house of
accused No.2. Accused No.3 is the wife of accused
No.2. PW3 was left in the company of accused
No.3. PW3 spent that night in the house of
NC: 2025:KHC:12741-DB
accused Nos.2 and 3. On the next day, accused
No.2 brought PW3 to railway station, where
accused No.1 was present. Accused No.2 gave
accused No.1 the key of his house at Bengaluru
and asked both accused No.1 and PW3 to go to
Bengaluru. Accordingly, on 07.07.2014 both of
them came to Bengaluru and stayed in a house at
Nagarabhavi. On 08.07.2014, accused No.1 told
PW3 that he wanted to marry her. To this PW3
replied that her parents would take a decision in
regard to her marriage. Then inspite of resistance
by her accused No.1 committed rape on her. This
is the prosecution case.
4. On 09.07.2014, the police brought both
of them to Devaraja police station, Mysuru. After
registration of FIR, investigation was held and
charge sheet came to be filed against three
accused persons. The prosecution examined 13
witnesses and got marked 28 documents.
NC: 2025:KHC:12741-DB
Assessing the evidence, the trial court arrived at a
conclusion that the evidence of PW3 i.e.,
prosecutrix would not inspire confidence because
of her inconsistent testimony. This is the main
reason for recording acquittal.
5. We have heard the arguments of Sri
Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the appellant/State. Learned counsel
for the respondents remained absent. We have
perused the entire evidence.
6. Exs.P25 and 26 are the documents
produced by the prosecution to prove the age of
PW3. Ex.P25 is the SSLC Certificate and Ex.P26 is
the birth certificate. In both these documents the
date of birth of PW3 is mentioned as 12.04.1997.
Therefore as on 06.07.2014, her age was 17 years
2 months and 24 days i.e., she was a girl below
the age of 18 years.
NC: 2025:KHC:12741-DB
7. During the investigation PW3 was taken
before the Magistrate. She gave her statement
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., narrating the entire
incident and said that she was subjected to
forcible sexual intercourse by accused No.1. In
the medical examination reports Exs.P22 and 23, it
is opined that PW3 was used to an act like that of
sexual intercourse; her hymen was absent. For
the reason that the doctor who has examined PW3
and the accused, though an inference can be
drawn that PW3 might have been subjected to
intercourse by somebody, but the manner in which
she has given evidence does not inspire confidence
to act upon her testimony.
8. Although many witnesses have been
examined, her testimony is not sufficient enough
to prove the case of prosecution. In the
examination-in-chief she supported, but when she
was questioned with regard to Ex.P8, the
NC: 2025:KHC:12741-DB
panchanama drawn in connection with the place
where the sexual intercourse had taken place, she
did not support the prosecution with regard to
drawing up of panchanama. Her clear answer is
that she did not know where she put her signature
on Ex.P8 and she did not show any place to the
police. According to prosecution the house
mentioned in Ex.P8 is the place where she was
subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. If she did
not support drawing up of panchanama as per
Ex.P8, it causes a serious dent to the prosecution
case. Even in the cross examination she gave a
go-bye to whatever she stated in examination-in-
chief by stating that she did not know the first
accused and she did not go with him to any place.
She denied to have come over to Bengaluru with
accused No.1. She simply stated that she spent
4 days in her friend's house. Therefore her
evidence is not supporting to the prosecution. If it
is mentioned in the medical report that PW3 was
NC: 2025:KHC:12741-DB
used to an act like that of sexual intercourse, it
does not assume any significance. The prosecution
case has failed. The trial court is justified in
acquitting all the accused. Therefore appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
KMV
