Shrishail vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1278 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shrishail vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425
                                                        CRL.A No. 200058 of 2021


                      HC-KAR




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH
                           DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200058 OF 2021
                      BETWEEN:

                      SHRISHAIL S/O SOMANNA @ SOMAPPA DONUR,
                      AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                      R/O MANAGULI VILLAGE,
                      TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
                      DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586122.

                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. R S LAGALI.,ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      BY THE SHO., MANAGULI PS.
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA            REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE
DATTATRAYA            PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
UDAGI
Location: HIGH        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.

                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
                      R2 SERVED)

                           THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C BY THE
                      ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYING TO ADMIT
                      THIS APPEAL, CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE Court
                      BELOW, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE
                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DT. 31.03.2021
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425
                                         CRL.A No. 200058 of 2021


HC-KAR




PASSED BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I,
VIJAYAPURA IN SPECIAL CASE (POCSO) NO.8/2020 AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF ALL THE CHARGES.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGEMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                         CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 31.03.2021 passed in

Spl.C.(POCSO) No.8/2020, by the Additional Sessions judge

and FTSC-I (POCSO) at Vijayapura (hereinafter referred as

"Trial Court"), whereby the Trial Court convicted the appellant-

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

354(D) and 509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence

punishable under Section 341 of IPC; sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and

to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 354(D) of IPC; sentenced undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5000/- for the offence 509 of IPC and further sentenced

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and

to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 12 of POCSO Act. Further directed all the sentence shall

run concurrently.

2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case is that

PW.1-victim i.e., daughter of PWs.4 and 5 were residing at

Managuli Village and the appellant/accused happens to be their

neighbour. The appellant used to pester/eve tease the victim

while she was going to her school and while returning from

School. He used to obstruct her by parking his motorcycle

across the pathway and insist her to talk with him. Due to the

same, the victim did not go to School for three months from

June to August 2019. However, her parents insisted to continue

the School, as such, she again started to attend the School.

Despite, the accused accosted the victim in front of Anganawadi

School and threw a chit mentioning his mobile number towards

her and proposed his crush on her and wished to marry her by

impressing her to have conversation with him.

3. Subsequently, on 26.01.2020 in the night hours,

the accused knocked the door of the house of victim, when her

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

father-PW.4 tried to apprehend him, he escaped. Hence, on the

same day, the victim lodged the complaint against the

appellant/accused as per Ex.P1 before the respondent-Police.

On the strength of complaint, the respondent-Police registered

the case against the appellant for the aforementioned offences

in Crime No.13/2020 as per Ex.P8 and laid the charge sheet

against the accused for the aforementioned offences before the

Trial Court.

4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the

accused before the Trial Court, the prosecution in total

examined 14 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and marked 10

documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The accused neither examined

any witness nor marked any documents on his behalf.

5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him for the

charges leveled against him as stated supra. The said judgment

is challenged in this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

HCGP for the respondent-State.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

7. Apart from urging several contentions, learned

counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the

judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and

illegality since the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence

on record in a right perspective. He contended that though it is

alleged in the complaint and in the evidence of victim that due

to eve teasing by the accused, the victim discontinued her

School for a period of three months, but PW.7-School Teacher

did not state so and no documents placed by the prosecution to

prove the same. The Investigation Officer also did not make

any effort to collect the attendance register or any other

documents to that effect.

8. He also contended that PW.9 who claims to be an

eyewitness to the incident stated that he had witnessed the

incident in the bus stop at Managuli and the victim leaving the

place with tears. However, as per the evidence of PW.1 she was

eve teased by accused in the School premises. According to the

learned counsel, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5-parents of the

victim also not reliable for the reason that they neither

enquired the victim nor lodged any complaint for a period of

three months, when the victim allegedly discontinued the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

School due to the harassment of accused. Further, the

inordinate delay of one month in lodging the complaint creates

a doubt in the genesis of the crime and all these aspects of the

matter were not appreciated by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he

prays to allow the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned HCGP by supporting the

impugned judgment contended that after meticulously

examining the evidence on record, the Trial Court rightly

convicted the accused in a well reasoned judgment, which does

not call for any interference. He contended that the evidence of

PW.1-victim corroborates the testimony of her parents-PWs.4

and 5 and also the testimony of independent eyewitness-PW.9.

In such circumstance, the prosecution proved the charges

leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

10. I have given my anxious consideration both on the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective

parties and the evidence available on record.

11. As could be gathered from records, the prosecution

primarily relied on the evidence of PW.1-victim and her

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

parents-PWs.4 and 5. On perusal of the evidence of victim, she

reiterated the complaint averments in her evidence and stated

that when she was studying in 9th standard at B.S. Patil High

School, Managuli, the accused eve teased and insisted her to

love him during September, 2019. As such, she discontinued

the School for a period of three months and later in the month

of December, 2019, she once again started to attend the

School. On 23.12.2019, the accused insisted her to call through

phone by insisting to marry him. As such, she informed the

same to her father and lodged the complaint on 28.01.2020.

Admittedly, there is a delay of more than one month in lodging

the complaint from the last date of action of the accused.

Admittedly, she has not stated in her evidence that why she

had not informed her parents or lodged any complaint for the

alleged act of the accused for a period of three months from

September to December, 2019. PWs.4 and 5 her parents also

did not enquire her about discontinuing her School for a period

of three months nor lodged any complaint against the accused.

12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant, PW.7-the Assistant Teacher of B.S. Patil High school,

though examined, he did not state about the discontinuation of

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

victim to the School for a period of three months. Even the

Investigation Officer did not obtain any documents to that

effect.

13. In such circumstances, the complaint averments

and the evidence of the victim that the accused eve teased her

in the month of September, 2019 and due to that, she

discontinued her School from September to December, 2019, is

not supported by any documentary evidence or from the

reliable oral evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5. Further, PWs.4 and 5

stated that, one day during harvest season at night hours, the

accused knocked the door of their house and ran away,

however, PWs.4 and 5 have not stated the exact date.

According to PW.5, the said incident was caused one year prior

to her date of evidence. However, they have not lodged any

complaint to that effect.

14. In such circumstance, the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and

5 does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court.

Though, PW.9 the alleged eyewitness to the incident deposed

that he had seen the victim at bus stop when the accused eve

teasing her, he has not stated the date or time of the alleged

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

incident. Nevertheless, according to PW.1, the incident was

allegedly caused near Anganwadi while she was returning from

the School and not at the bus stop, as alleged by PW.9.

Further, PW.9 also not informed the same to the parents of the

victim and his statement was recorded after several months. In

such circumstance, the evidence of PW.9 is also not trustworthy

to believe and there is no corroboration in the evidence of

PWs.1, 4, 5 and 9.

15. On overall assessment of the oral and documentary

evidence, in my considered view, the prosecution has failed to

prove the incident beyond reasonable doubt. Merely, the victim

was a minor at the time of incident, the prosecution cannot

claim that the accused committed incident and liable to be

convicted for the charges leveled against him. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Mousam Singha Roy v. State of

W.B. reported in (2003) 12 SCC 377 has made an

observation in respect of moral conviction that, wandering on

strong suspicion is not an option to decide a case by the

Sessions Court and held in paragraph No.27 as under:

"27. Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637 :

1957 Cri LJ 1014] stated thus: (AIR p. 645, para

12)

It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused.

Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted."

16. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I am of the

considered view that the Trial Court erred in convicting the

accused for the offences leveled against him and interference in

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1425

HC-KAR

the impugned judgment is called for. Accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Crl.A.No.200058/2021 is allowed.

       ii.    The judgment of conviction and order of
               sentence      dated          31.03.2021     in

Spl.C.(POCSO) No.8/2020 by the Additional Sessions judge and FTSC-I (POCSO) at Vijayapura is hereby set aside.

Sd/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT-BH