[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt.Varalakshmi vs State By Bagalagunte on 13 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1695/2025
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122/2024
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1695/2025:
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILIDING,
BENGALURU-560001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
1. SRI. RAGHUVEER,
S/O ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RALAPALLI VILLAGE,
MADAKASIRA TALUK, ANANTAPUR,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515001.
2
2. SMT. VARALAKSHMI,
W/O MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O RALAPALLI,
MADAKSHIRA TALUK,
ANDRAPRADESH STATE.
SECOND ADDRESS:
NARAYANAPPA BUILIDING,
8TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
MALLASANDRA, T.DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA-560 052. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PREMA KUMAR G.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE - FTSC-II, BENGALURU IN
SPL.CC NO.2945/2023, IN SO FAR AS ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR CHARGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 363, 366, 376 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 5(L), 6
OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122/2024:
BETWEEN:
SMT. VARALAKSHMI,
W/O.MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4-17,
RALAPALLI VILLAGE,
MADAKSIRA TALUK, ANANTPUR,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE-515 305. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1. STATE BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. RAGHUVEER,
S/O.ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT RALAPATHI VILLAGE,
MADAKSIRA TALUK, ANANTPUR,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE-515 305.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI. G.A.PREMA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, BENGALURU, IN
SPL.C.C.NO.2945/2023 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 363, 366, 376 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION
5(L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.A AND
CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 366,
376 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 5(L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.02.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
These two appeals are filed by the State and P.W.2,
mother of the victim girl, respectively, challenging the
judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2024 passed in
Spl.C.C.No.2945/2023, on the file of the Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru and praying this
Court to set aside the acquittal order passed for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and
Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 ('POCSO Act' for short) and to convict the accused for
the above offences.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that the victim girl is the daughter of P.W.2 and the victim girl
was a resident of Ralahalli Village, Madakasira Taluk,
Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. The accused is also a native of
the same place, where the victim girl is residing. During the
month of April 2023, the accused came in contact with the
victim girl and forced her to love him, but the victim girl
refused his proposal by saying that she is still minor. But the
accused told that he will marry her and made her to love him
and thereafter, they both started roaming. It is the further
case of the prosecution that 1½ months prior to the date of
lodging of the complaint, the fact of love affair between the
accused and the victim girl came to the knowledge of P.W.2
and she advised the accused not to continue such an act and
she sent the victim girl to the house of P.W.1. That P.W.1
was residing at Mallasandra, T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore. This
fact came to the knowledge of the accused and he used to
come near the house of P.W.1 and he used to talk with the
victim girl. On 16.10.2023, the accused kidnapped the victim
girl from the house of P.W.1 and took her to the house of
Bharatha S/o Muniyappa, which is situated at Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore and in that room, the accused had forceful sexual
act with her repeatedly against her wish. Thereafter, the
accused took her to Tirupathi and Hyderabad and later
dropped her near Jalahalli Cross. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 had
already lodged the complaint and the case was registered in
Crime No.369/2023 for the offence punishable under Section
363 of IPC. On the return of the victim girl, her statement
was recorded before the police and also she was taken to the
Magistrate and her statement was recorded under Section 164
of Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officer conducted the
investigation and filed the charge-sheet for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused did not plead guilty
and claimed trial and hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1
to P.W.15 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 23
and material objects of M.O.1 to M.O.7 were marked. On
closure of the evidence, 313 statement of the accused was
recorded and he did not lead any defence evidence, except
marking of Ex.D.1 confronting the same in the cross-
examination of P.W.9.
3. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, answered all the
points in the negative coming to the conclusion that the age of
the minor was not proved, though relied upon Exs.P.11 and
12 and the same is not admissible and the same is not
sufficient to determine the age of the victim girl as required
under sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ('JJ Act' for short). The
evidence of the doctor was also taken note of and the same is
coupled with the evidence of P.W.3 victim girl and comes to
the conclusion that the doctor's evidence is very clear that
hymen was intact and there were no any injuries and no sign
of subjecting her for sexual act and medical report Ex.P.9 was
also taken note of and comes to the conclusion that in the
absence of medical evidence, the question of convicting the
accused does not arise and the prosecution has failed to prove
the case against the accused.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal,
Crl.A.No.1695/2025 is filed by the State and
Crl.A.No.2122/2024 is filed by the mother of the victim girl.
5. The learned Additional SPP appearing for the
appellant/State in Crl.A.No.1695/2025 would vehemently
contend that the accused with the knowledge that the victim
is a minor girl, has forcibly abducted and committed rape on
her. The victim girl has supported the case of the persecution
in her statement before the police and also before the doctor
and also before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
The statement of the victim itself is sufficient to prove the
guilt of the accused. It is also contended that the provisions
of POCSO Act are enacted to provide legal protection to
children, who are victims of sexual assault or outraged her
modesty. These factors point towards different procedures
required to be adopted. The overturning of well conducted
case of the prosecution on the ground like non-examination of
other witnesses, when the case against the accused otherwise
establishes the case beyond reasonable doubt, is erroneous.
The Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused,
which leads to miscarriage of justice and the learned Judge
has ignored the reliable and acceptable evidence on record
and thereby committed an error and erroneous conclusion was
given and hence, it requires interference.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/mother of
the victim, in Crl.A.No.2122/2024, would vehemently contend
that the Special Judge grossly erred in holding that the
prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused even
though there is a positive evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled
with documentary and oral evidence of other witnesses. The
learned Special Judge grossly erred in not accepting Exs.P.11
and 12 holding that these documents does not fall under the
criteria of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of JJ Act, even though
the procedure prescribed under sub-Section (2) of Section 94
of JJ Act is to determine the age of an individual when the age
of an individual is not definite. But in the case on hand, the
victim's age is definite as per Exs.P.11 and 12 and P.W.2,
mother of the victim, clearly stated that the victim is aged
about 16 years and before the doctor also the age was stated.
Exs.P.11 and 12 was supported by the evidence of the Head
Master of MPP school, who has been examined as P.W.11 and
he identifies his signature on Exs.P.11 and 12. The defence
did not dispute the school. When such being the case, ought
not to have rejected Exs.P.11 and 12. The learned counsel
would submit that the victim made the statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also made the statement before
the doctor in terms of Ex.P.9 and categorically stated that she
is a minor and when she was taken away by the accused from
the custody of legal guardian, ought to have examined the
same, but committed an error in not relying upon the vital
evidence. Even the evidence of P.W.9, who is the owner of
the building wherein the accused was residing, is very clear.
The case of the prosecution is that she was subjected to
sexual act in the said room and the Trial Court fails to take
note of oral and documentary evidence in a proper
perspective and it requires interference of this Court and
reverse the judgment of acquittal.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
accused submits that the Trial Court having taken note of
Exs.P.11 and 12, in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 comes to the
conclusion that the same has now been proved under the JJ
Act. The learned counsel would submit that the medical
evidence is very clear that she was not subjected to sexual
act. The evidence of doctor P.W.10 is very clear. The learned
counsel would submit that there is no FSL report evidencing
the fact that she was subjected to sexual act. The learned
counsel would submit that even the victim girl has
categorically admitted that she was always outside and
roaming along with the accused and she only gave the
address of P.W.1 to the accused. The learned counsel would
submits that sister i.e., P.W.1's wife was not examined and
father of the victim was not examined and Exs.P.11 and 12
are not proved and once Exs.P.11 and 12 are not proved that
she is a minor, the question of invoking the offences, which
are invoked against the accused does not arise.
8. In reply to this argument, the learned counsel
appearing for the complainant/P.W.2 mother of the victim,
would vehemently contend that the Court has to take note of
the ingredients of Sections 361 and 363 of IPC and when the
age of the victim is proved that she is a minor and taking the
victim from the custody of the guardian without the consent
amounts to an offence and ought to have invoked Section 361
ingredients and penalised under Section 363 of IPC.
9. The learned Additional SPP appearing for the State
also reiterated that the documents of Exs.P.11 and 12 are
marked and if the documents of Exs.P.11 and 12 are
accepted, there is a case to invoke the penal provision under
Section 363 of IPC and hence, it requires interference.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants in both the cases and the learned counsel
appearing for the accused and considering both oral and
documentary evidence available on record and on re-
appraisal, the points that would arise for the consideration of
this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
not accepting the case of the prosecution and
whether acquittal order amounts to
miscarriage of justice, as contended in both
the appeals?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
11. We have given our anxious consideration to both
oral and documentary evidence available on record. This Court
has already mentioned that the case of the prosecution is that
there was an allegation of kidnapping of minor girl by the
accused and subjecting her for sexual act. Having made a
glance of the prosecution witnesses' evidence, it is clear that
law was set in motion by registering a case against unknown
person based on the complaint of P.W.1 and the same is a
missing complaint, wherein it is stated that the victim girl
went to go to the tailor shop, but she did not return. Hence,
the complaint was lodged in terms of Ex.P.1 and signature of
P.W.1 is identified as Ex.P.1(a). Thereafter, the victim came
back and narrated what had happened. P.W.1 is a witness to
Ex.P.2 panchanama. P.W.1 only speaks about missing of the
victim from his house and details are given that she was
pursuing her education. He came to know that the accused
was having a house at Kamakshipalya and except lodging of
the complaint and reiterating the statement of the victim,
nothing is elicited and hence, it is clear that P.W.1 is a
hearsay witness.
12. The other witness is P.W.2, mother of the victim
girl. In her evidence, she says that she is running a hotel. The
accused was visiting her hotel and later she came to know
that the accused was telling her daughter that he is loving her
and hence, she advised him not to do the same. Her first
daughter i.e., wife of P.W.1 was not keeping well and hence,
she sent the victim girl to Bangalore. Her evidence is that on
16.10.2023, the accused came near the house of P.W.1 and
made hand signal and called her and her daughter left the
house stating that she is going to tailor shop, but she did not
turn up. Hence, complaint was given by P.W.1 and they did
not find her and ultimately on 23.10.2023, she came back and
she revealed about the role of the accused that he took her to
his room and forcibly had sexual intercourse and thereafter,
they went to Tirupathi and then to Hyderabad and then the
accused dropped her near Jalahalli Cross. Hence, the victim
was taken to the police station and her statement was
recorded and she was also subjected to medical examination
and identified her signature giving consent for medical
examination in terms of Ex.P.3.
13. This witness was subjected to cross-examination.
In the cross-examination, it is admitted that they belong to
Vokkaliga community and the accused belongs to Scheduled
Caste. She admits that she came to know about the love
affair and advised the accused and her daughter. The
evidence of this witness is also hearsay evidence based on the
statement of the victim girl.
14. P.W.3 is the victim girl and in her evidence she
says that her date of birth is 10.06.2008 and she is pursuing
first PUC. She says that the accused used to visit their hotel
and she was having acquaintance with him and he forced her
to love him, but she refused. But both of them were roaming
with each other and when the same came to the knowledge of
her parents, she was sent to the house of P.W.1. The accused
came to know about the same and he came near the house of
P.W.1 and called her and she refused, but he forced her and
then both of them went to the room at Kamakshipalya,
wherein the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.
Thereafter, he took her to Tirupathi and then to Hyderabad
and on 23.10.2023, he brought her back and left her in
Jalahalli Cross. Thereafter, she gave the statement before the
police and also her statement was recorded in the Magistrate
Court.
15. In the cross-examination, she admits that both
accused and herself belong to the same village. It was
suggested that she was loving the accused, but she says that
he was forcing her, but admits that both of them were
roaming together. She says that only because of fear, she was
roaming along with him. She says that she only gave the
address of P.W.1. Based on that, accused came near the
house of P.W.1. When a question was put to her that when
the accused came near the house, why she did not inform the
same to P.W.1, she says that due to fear she did not inform
the same. She says that when the accused forced her, she
went along with him. Once again she says that she went with
fear, but the same was not disclosed to the police. It is also
her evidence that the accused came along with his friend in
two wheeler and she also went in the same bike along with
the accused and his friend and they travelled for about 45
minutes in the very same vehicle and she cannot give the
vehicle number. When a question was put that when she was
taken to the room, why she did not inform the neighbours,
she says that she was having fear. She says that they were in
the room for about 1½ hour.
16. The other witnesses P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the
panch witnesses.
17. P.W.9 is the son of the owner of the building where
the accused lived. He says that for one day both the accused
and the victim were there in the room. But the evidence of
P.W.3 victim girl is that they were there in the house for only
1½ hour. P.W.9 says that the accused informed him that he
is loving the victim and going to marry her. The evidence of
P.W.9 is not helpful to the prosecution.
18. The other witness is P.W.10 doctor, who conducted
the medical examination of the victim girl. P.W.10 in her
evidence says that the personality of the victim girl was grown
as per her age. She did not find any external injuries on the
private part or over the body of the victim and the hymen was
intact and given the certificate in terms of Ex.P.9. She says
that the seized articles were sent to the FSL. In the cross-
examination, she admits that in Ex.P.9 she has stated that
she has not found any sign of subjecting the victim for sexual
act.
19. The other witness is P.W.11 School Headmaster.
He produced the documents at Exs.P.11 and 12 and says that
the date of birth of the victim girl is 10.06.2008 as per the
school records. He admits that the police requested through
whatsapp and issued Exs.P.11 and 12 and no letter was given.
20. The other witnesses are police witnesses for
recording statement and conducting the investigation.
21. The other documentary evidence before the Court
are Ex.P.1 complaint lodged by P.W.1, Ex.P.2 is the spot
mahazar. Ex.P.3 is the consent for examination i.e., for age
estimation and also for evidence of sexual intercourse. Ex.P.4
is the 164 statement of the victim girl. Ex.P.5 is the medical
examination report of the accused. Ex.P.6 is police notice to
panch witnesses. Ex.P.7 is the spot mahazar. Ex.P.8 is the
police notice. Ex.P.9 is the document of opinion given by the
doctor, wherein it is stated that there is no sign of intercourse
and that there are no signs of an act like that of sexual
intercourse. Ex.P.10 is the letter given to the doctor. Exs.P.11
and 12 are the admission register and school admissions
record of the victim girl. Ex.P.13 is the letter given to the
headmaster. Ex.P.14 is the office memorandum invoking of
Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC against the accused.
Ex.P.15 is a letter for apprehending the accused. Ex.P.17 is
the FIR. Ex.P.18 is a letter given to P.W.2 for taking consent
to subject the victim girl for medical examination. Ex.P.19 is
in respect of recording the statement of the victim. Ex.P.20 is
electricity bill. Ex.P.21 is the letter addressed to the FSL.
Ex.P.22 is the letter given to the Inspector for recording
statement and Ex.P.23 is the certificate under Section 65(B)
of the Indian Evidence Act. Ex.D.1 is the statement of the
owner of the building.
22. Having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record, it is clear that P.W.1 is the
brother-in-law of the victim girl and he had lodged the missing
complaint as per Ex.P.1. The evidence of P.W.2, mother of the
victim girl, is very clear with regard to missing of her daughter
and later on she came back and narrated what had happened.
Hence, she was taken to the police station and her statement
was recorded. The main evidence before the Court is with
regard to the evidence of the victim girl. The evidence of the
victim girl, particularly when she was taken to the Magistrate
after giving the statement before the police, she categorically
says that she fell in love with him and they used to roam
around the city every now and then. When the parents came
to know about their love affair, she was sent to the house of
P.W.1. On 16.10.2023, both of them eloped and then first
went to Kamakshipalya, where they had sexual intercourse,
even though she says she had resisted. Thereafter, they went
to Tirupathi and to Hyderabad and came back and the accused
only dropped her to Jalahalli Cross and forced to tell that she
was with her friends. Having considered this, it is very clear
that both of them were loving each other and they used to
roam around the city every now and then. The admission on
the part of P.W.1 is clear that when she was sent to the house
of P.W.1, she only gave the address of the house of P.W.1 to
the accused and thereafter she eloped along with the accused.
Hence, the question of invoking the ingredients of Section 361
of IPC as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants cannot be accepted. It is clear that both of them
were loving each other and even roamed everywhere and only
on her instance, the accused came near the house of P.W.1
and both of them eloped. It is important to note that to
invoke Sections 361 and 363 of IPC, there must be an
ingredient of forcibly taking her i.e., kidnapping the minor girl
and no such forcibly taking of her from the custody of the
guardian. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that she left the
house telling that she is going to the tailor shop, but did not
turn up. The Court has to take note of the conduct of the
victim and she only called the accused and went along with
him. The ingredients of Section 361 of IPC is missing. Even
though the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/mother of the victim and the learned Additional SPP
appearing for the State would contend that it attracts Section
361 ingredients and also the penal provision of Section 363,
the same cannot be accepted.
23. The next question before the Court is with regard
to subjecting her for sexual act. No doubt, P.W.3 victim girl
says that she was taken to Kamakshipalya room and the
accused had continuous sexual act. But the evidence of the
doctor P.W.10 is very clear that there is no any sign of
subjecting her for sexual assault and no injuries are found and
there was no any sign of sexual intercourse. The medical
evidence not supports the evidence of P.W.3 and also there
were no any external injuries found on the genital area or
anywhere in the body of the victim and the hymen was intact
and hence, the question of invoking the offence under Section
376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act does not arise.
24. In cases under the POCSO Act, where the victim
does not support the prosecution and medical evidence does
not corroborate the allegations, the case generally face a high
probability of acquittal due to lack of evidence. In such cases,
the Court looks for independent corroborative evidence, such
as testimony from other circumstances viz., FLS report etc.
25. Now the question before the Court is whether she
was taken with the consent of guardian. The case of the
prosecution is that she was a minor and no doubt, the specific
age is also mentioned in the evidence and also relies upon the
document of Exs.P.11 and 12. Ex.P.11 is in Telugu language
and the same is not translated into Kannada language and the
same is not accepted by the Trial Court. Ex.P.12 discloses the
date of birth of the victim girl as 10.06.2008 and studying
year is mentioned as 2013 to 2018 from 1st standard to 5th
standard. It has to be noted that the Trial Court while
considering the age of the victim girl, considered Exs.P.11 and
12 in paragraph No.14 and also the evidence given by the
school Headmaster and particularly in paragraph No.15, in
order to prove the age is concerned, taken note of proving of
the age under sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of JJ Act. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.YUVAPRAKASH v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
reported in (2024) 17 SCC 684, held that as per Section
94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act, the date of birth certificate from the
school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the
examination board concerned 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 that the
age is to be determined through "an ossification test" or "any
other latest medical age determination test" conducted on the
orders of the authority concerned i.e., Committee or Board or
Court.
26. When there is a dispute with regard to the age is
concerned, it should be proved in accordance with law. No
document of birth certificate is placed before the Court and
Exs.P.11 and 12 does not come within the purview of criteria
of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of JJ Act. Though the
Headmaster speaks about the admission record, the same is
based on the information given by the parents of the victim at
the time of admission and the same is not the age proof.
Apart from that, the document Ex.P.3 is very clear that
consent was given to examine the victim for age estimation
and also for evidence of sexual intercourse. But the doctor has
not opined the age of the victim and only it is mentioned as
she is 16 years and that is only a consent for examination and
no age estimation record is placed before the Court.
Ossification test is also not conducted in order to come to a
conclusion with regard to the age of the victim is concerned.
When such being the case, the Trial Court has not committed
any error in coming to the conclusion that the entry made in
the school records cannot be believed in the absence of proof
of the date of birth under the provisions of JJ Act and the
same is discussed in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 and comes to
the right conclusion that the same has not been proved. It is
important to note that the victim herself eloped with the
accused and there was no any force of kidnapping and she
herself called the accused and went along with him. Apart
from that, the age of the victim is also not proved. The Court
has to take note of the fact that at the first instance she
accompanied the accused and his friend in a motorcycle and
travelled for about 45 minutes and then went to the house of
the accused and in the said house she was there for about 1½
hour, according to her and then they went to Tirupathi and
thereafter to Hyderabad and then she came back along with
the accused and the accused only dropped her near Jalahalli
Cross. Having taken note of all these factors into
consideration, the question of invoking Sections 361 and 363
of IPC does not arise as contended by the learned counsel for
the appellants and hence, we answer the point accordingly.
Point No.(ii):
27. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
Both the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MD
