Karnataka High Court
Krishna S vs The State By on 12 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
CRL.A No. 1957 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 1156 of 2024
CRL.A No. 1276 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1957 OF 2024 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1276 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1957 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
KRISHNA S. S/O. SHRINIVASARAO,
AGED 29 YEARS,
R/O NO.450, GROUND FLOOR,
1ST MAIN, NEW BINNYPET,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 023.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN (BY SRI. VEERANNA G.TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AYUB DESHNUR
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE BY JAGAJEEVAN
RAM NAGAR POLICE,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SOWMYA A. D/O. ANBUPANDAAN,
AGED 22 YEARS,
R/O. ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD,
DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 057.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI. RAMESHA H.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
CRL.A No. 1957 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 1156 of 2024
CRL.A No. 1276 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 01.06.2024 AND SENTENCE DATED
03.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-V, BENGALURU IN
SPL.C.C.NO.909/2019, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 366(A), 376(D) OF IPC, SECTION 67(B)(E) OF THE
I.T. ACT AND UNDER SECTION 5(G), 6 AND 14 OF POCSO ACT
2012.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1156 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. ABHILASH @ ABHI
S/O PURUSHOTHAM,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, GROUND FLOOR,
9TH MAIN, K.P. AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VEERANNA G.TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY JAGAJEEVANRAM NAGAR
POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. XXX VICTIM (SINCE MINOR)
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
GUARDIAN FATHER
NOW 21 YEARS
D/O PANDYAN,
AGED 57 YEARS,
R/AT. DASARAHALLI, ANJENEYA TEMPLE BEHIND
BENGALURU - 562 114 .
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
CRL.A No. 1957 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 1156 of 2024
CRL.A No. 1276 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-V, BENGALURU BY JUDGMENT DATED
01.06.2024, IN SPL. C.C. NO.909/2019, ON 03.06.2024
SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT
FOR 20 YEARS AND SHALL ALSO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/-, IN
CASE TO DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, HE SHALL
UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(D) OF IPC, HE
FURTHER CONVICTED AND FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 5(G), 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 20
YEARS AND ALSO WITH FINE OF RS.10,000/- IN DEFAULT OF
PAYMENT OF FINE AMOUNT SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEARS, OF 1 YEAR,
FURTHER CONVICTED AND FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 14 OF POCSO ACT AND SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 5
YEARS WITH FINE OF RS.5,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
FINE AMOUNT SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEARS, AND ALSO
CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 67(B)(E) OF IT ACT 14 OF POSCO ACT AND
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A
PERIOD OF 3 YEARS WITH FINE OF RS.50,000/- IN DEFAULT
OF PAYMENT OF FINE AMOUNT SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEARS, AND
ACQUIT HIM IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1276 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
YATHISH KUMAR @ YATISH
S/O MAHADEV PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.78, 1ST MAIN,
NEW BINNYPETE, BANGALORE - 560 023.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VEERANNA G.TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
CRL.A No. 1957 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 1156 of 2024
CRL.A No. 1276 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAGAJEEVANRAM NAGAR P.S.,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SUMAN
W/O ANBUPANDIAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ANJANEYA TEMPLE, DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 057.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 01.06.2024 AND SENTENCE DATED
03.06.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-V, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.
NO.909/2019, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 366(A), 376(D) OF IPC, SECTION 67(B)(E) OF THE
I.T. ACT. AND SECTION 5(G), 6 AND 14 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 08.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
CRL.A No. 1957 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 1156 of 2024
CRL.A No. 1276 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
These appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 separately
arising out of the same judgment and same crime numbers.
Therefore, taken up together for disposal.
Factual matrix of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to
3 are well-known to P.W.1 from past three years. The accused
No.1 was loving her since one and half years. The accused
Nos.2 and 3 are friends, they used to go together whenever the
occasion arises. The accused No.1 took the victim to his house
to introduce to his mother. The mother of accused No.1
informed the complainant that accused No.1 was not taking
care either her or her daughter who is pregnant, such being the
fact, even if she married him, there would be a problem to her.
On hearing the said information the victim gradually trying to
detach from the company of accused No.1. The accused No.1
being enraged by the said detachment, hatched a plan to
commit rape on her. Accordingly, on 05.06.2019, he called
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
accused Nos.2 and 3 to his house and hatched a plan. The
accused No.3 called P.W.1 from his mobile and informed her
that he was going to his native and he wanted to meet her.
Accordingly, the victim was waiting near the place where she
had been instructed. He went to the spot on his scooter and
took her and dropped her near one place and asked her to wait
till he returns back. Again, he took her on his scooter and
proceeded towards the house of accused No.1. At that time,
P.W.1 asked accused No.3 as to why she had been brought to
the house of accused No.1, by that time, accused Nos.1 and 2
caught hold the victim by closing her mouth and took her inside
the house and forcibly made her to consume alcohol and
committed sexual assault on her. After, the incident, she was
scot-free and asked her to go to her home. In the mean time,
they snatched the mobile phone of P.W.1 and sent her outside
the house. When she was going on the street, she was crying.
On hearing the crying of the victim, public asked her as why
she was crying, victim narrated the incident, and they called
the Police. The Police took her to the place where she had been
subjected to sexual assault and arrested the accused persons
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
and recorded statement of the victim. The respondent-Police
after conducting the investigation submitted the charge-sheet.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case had
examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked 53
documents as Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.53 and also identified 23 material
objects and marked as M.O.1 to M.O.23.
4. Heard Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned counsel for
appellants and Smt. Pushpalatha B. learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri. Ramesha H.N.,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial
Court is highly erroneous and contrary to the facts and
evidence on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 -
victim is having contradictions and omissions. Based on her
evidence, recording the conviction is erroneous and irrelevant.
6. It is further submitted that P.W.3 - Dr. Prabhavathi
who was working as Doctor at Vani Vilas Hospital, conducted
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
medical examination of P.W.1 and submitted a report as per
Ex-P.12. The said report would indicate that she had not been
sexually assaulted recently. When P.W.1 was subjected to
medical examination on the same day, the Doctor opined that
there was no recent sexual intercourse, the allegations made
against accused Nos.1 to 3 certainly creates doubt. However,
the Trial court ignored the said medical report and appreciated
the evidence of prosecutrix which is improper.
7. It is further submitted that, the victim was aged
about 17 years and she had not undergone any medical
examination for the purpose of determination of her age nor
produced any authenticated documents to determine her age
that she was minor. It is further submitted that as the Trial
Court has committed error, resulted in passing the impugned
judgment, which is liable to be set aside. Making such
submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants prays to
allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader, vehemently, justified the judgment of conviction and
submitted that, the findings of the Trial Court in recording the
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
conviction are proper and relevant. P.W.1 being a victim has
supported the case of the prosecution. All the accused persons
are well-known to the victim. Immediately, after the incident,
she lodges a complaint before the respondent-Police and she
had been subjected to medical examination. The act of sexual
intercourse is proved through the medical examination and the
same has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1.
9. It is further submitted that the F.S.L report would
indicate that seminal stains was present in the Article 20. It
was collected at the time of examination of the victim on
06.06.2019. Such being the fact, findings of the Trial Court in
recording the conviction is proper and appropriate. There is no
reason to interfere with the said findings. Hence, the appeals
are required to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned counsels for the
respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial
Court in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to
re-appreciate the evidence of all the witnesses.
11. P.W.1 is the victim, she has supported in her
evidence that she knew accused Nos.1 to 3 through the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
daughter of her maternal aunt. As such they acquainted with
each other since two years. Accused No.1 - Krishna was loving
her and she was also loving him. After three months from the
date of liking each other, accused No.1 took her to his house to
introduce to his mother. His mother instructed her that accused
No.1 was not working properly and he was not taking care of
them properly. Such being the fact, even though she married
him, she would not be stayed in a good position. Having heard
the said instructions, she started avoiding him and it was not
liked by him. He started having grudge on her to destroy her
life. As per the evidence of P.W.1, she was raped by accused
No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted her and they were
witnessing the incident. Further, she stated that she was aged
about 17 years as on the date of the incident and thereafter,
immediately, she lodges a complaint against all the three
accused persons. She supported the case of the prosecution.
12. Further, P.W.2 is the Doctor who conducted the
medical examination of accused Nos.1 to 3 and gave opinion as
per Ex-P.5 to P.7.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
13. Further, P.W.3, was working as Doctor at Vani Vilas
Hospital, Bengaluru, she conducted medical examination of the
victim and submitted report as per Ex-P.9 and P.10.
14. Further P.W.4, was working at Private Factory and
was a resident of Binnypet, Bengaluru. He has turned hostile.
15. Further P.W.5, was working as Head Master of
Sangamitra Women's P.U.College, Vijayanagar. He is stated to
have submitted report as per Ex-P.15. According to him, the
date of birth of the victim is 13.02.2002. Further, in the
cross-examination, he admitted that he did not produce
admission register extract.
16. Further P.W.6, is the witness to the spot mahazar
which is marked as Ex-P.17, he has not supported the case of
the prosecution.
17. Further P.W.7, is the mother of the victim. She is
stated that the age of the victim is 17.02.2002 and her
daughter had been subjected to sexual assault by the accused
Nos.1 to 3. She supported the case of the prosecution.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
18. Further P.W.8, is stated to be the witness to
Ex-P.21, he supported the case of the prosecution.
19. Further P.W.9, is stated to the witness to Ex-P.21
and 22, he supported the case of the prosecution. However, he
was treated as hostile and examined by the prosecutor.
20. Further P.W.10, was working as P.S.I and he is
stated to have registered a case in Crime No.75/2019, on
receiving the complaint by the complainant.
21. Further P.W.11, was working as Nodal Officer, Jio
Company. He is stated to have issued 65(b) certificate as per
Ex-P.33.
22. Further P.W.12, was working as Women Police
Constable. According to her, she was present at the time of
conducting Mahazar and taken photographs and recorded
videos.
23. Further P.W.13, was working as Head Constable.
According to him, he was deputed to arrest accused Nos.1 to 3.
Accordingly, on 07.06.2019, he and other colleagues have
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 and produced them before the
Investigation Officer.
24. Further P.W.14, was working as Police Inspector of
J.J.Nagar Police Station. According to him, he has conducted
part of the investigation.
25. Further P.W.15, was working as Scientific Officer.
He conducted examination of records seized and sent by the
respondent - Police. After conducting the investigation, he
submitted report as per Ex-P.49.
26. On careful reading of evidences of all the witnesses,
it appears that the evidence of P.W.1 assumes greater
significance. According to P.W.1, in her complaint it is stated
that she had been subjected to sexual assault by all the three
accused persons. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
she narrated that all the accused have committed rape on her.
However, in her evidence, she deposed that only accused No.1
had committed sexual assault on her, accused No.2 assaulted
her and accused No.3 deceived her and took her to the house
of accused No.1. The evidence of P.W.1 appears to be
unnatural for the reasons that at the first instance she
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
implicated all the accused in the complaint. Subsequently, she
stated the same facts before the Magistrate. However, in her
evidence, she confined only accused No.1 that he had
committed rape on her. It is further noticed that P.W.5 -
B.V. Ramegowda, who was working as Head Master had
produced certificate as per Ex-P.15 and 16. The certificate
issued by him though appears to be determined the age of the
victim, the said certificate is neither in-consonance with the
Juvenile Justice Act nor in-consonance with the settled principle
of law.
27. In this context, it is appropriate to refer the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.
Yuvaprakash Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police1 in
paragraph Nos.12 to 14, which reads as under:
12. In view of Section 34(1) of the POCSO Act, Section 94 of
the JJ Act, 2015 becomes relevant, and applicable. That
provision is extracted below:
"94. Presumption and determination of age. - (1) Where, it
is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the
appearance of the person brought before it under any of the
provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving
evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the
2023 SCC Online SC 846
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
Board shall record such observation stating the age of the
child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under
section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting
for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable
grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought
before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the
case may be, shall undertake the process of age
determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the
matriculation or equivalent certificate from the
concerned examination Board, if available; and in the
absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall
be determined by an ossification test or any other
latest medical age determination test conducted on the
orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted
on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be
completed within fifteen days from the date of such
order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be
the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of
this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person."
13. It is evident from conjoint reading of the above provisions
that wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person
arises in the context of her or him being a victim under
the POCSO Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps
indicated in Section 94 of the JJ Act. The three documents in
order of which the Juvenile Justice Act requires consideration is
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
that the concerned court has to determine the age by considering
the following documents:
"(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the
matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall
be determined by an ossification test or any other latest
medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the
Committee or the Board".
14. Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the
date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or
equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to
be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate
issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and
it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the
age is to be determined through "an ossification test" or "any
other latest medical age determination test" conducted on the
orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or
Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate
and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent
certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer
certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997.
Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the
prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-
1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it
alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen
back upon a document which it had never relied upon.
Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy
Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997
in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not
answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could
not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at
the time of commission of the offence.
28. Though, the age of the victim is 17 years, as per
the records, the document of which the prosecution is relied on,
is not sufficient to hold that the said documents is conclusive to
determine the age of the victim. Such being the fact, it would
be very difficult to determine her age without being subjected
herself for the medical examination. In this case, the victim had
not been subjected to medical examination for the purpose of
determining her age. Therefore, whether the victim was minor
or not, would be ambiguous. Under such circumstances, the
benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused.
29. The Trial Court committed grave error in recording
the conviction on the basis of the evidence of the sole
prosecutrix. Though, her evidence contained contradictions and
omissions. It is a settled principle of law that in a case where
the entire case rests on sole prosecutrix, the evidence of the
said prosecutrix must be of sterling quality.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
30. In the present case, the evidence of prosecutrix
appears to be unnatural and unbelievable regarding the
commission of the said offence. Having gone through the
evidence of prosecutrix, appreciation of rest of the witnesses in
my considered view is not relevant. Therefore, it is appropriate
to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial
Court.
In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeals are allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2024 and
order on sentence dated 03.06.2024 passed in
Spl.C.C.No.909/2019 of the file of Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-V, Bengaluru, for
the offence punishable under Section 366(A),
376(D) of I.P.C read with Section 34 of I.P.C,
Section 67(B)(E) of I.T Act and Section 5(G), 6 and
14 of POCSO Act, 2012, is hereby, set aside.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46095
HC-KAR
iii. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3, are hereby,
acquitted.
iv. The bails bonds executed, if any, stands cancelled.
v. The Registry is directed to communicate this order
to the jail authorities, forthwith.
vi. The Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison,
Parappana Agrahara, is directed to release the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3, if they are not
required in any other cases.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
NM
