[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Sarita Bandekar vs Manjunath S/O. Narayana Bandekar on 23 February, 2026

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                             -1-
                                   CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

 DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                     BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

                       AND

    THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100151 OF 2022 (A)


   BETWEEN

   SMT. SARITA BANDEKAR,
   AGE: MAJOR,
   OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
   R/O. DUBBANASHISI,
   TAL: GOKARANA,
   DIST: UTTARA KANNADA,
   REP. MOTHER GUARDIAN OF THE VICTIM,
   PIN CODE-581344.
                                                ...APPELLANT
   (BY SMT. ANURADHA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

   AND

   1. MANJUNATH
      S/O. NARAYANA BANDEKAR,
      AGE: 30 YEARS,
      OCC: FISHERMAN,
      R/O. DUBBANASHISI,
      TAL: GOKARANA,
      DIST: UTTARA KANNADA- 581344.
                              -2-
                                   CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022




2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
   DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
   THROUGH GOKARANA POLICE STATION.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRANAV UMESH BADAGI AND
   SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
   SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP FOR R2)


       THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
CR.P.C. 1973 SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SPECIAL
CASE NO.50/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, U.K. KARWAR (SPECIAL COURT FOR
THE TRIAL OF CASES FILED UNDER POCSO ACT) AND TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 19.08.2021 FOR
THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 376, 506 OF IPC AND 4, 6 OF
THE POCSO ACT BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-1, U.K. KARWAR (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL
OF CASES FILED UNDER POCSO ACT) IN SPECIAL CASE
NO.50/2020 AND AN ORDER OF CONVICTION IN FAVOR OF THE
APPELLANT THEREBY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND
ETC.


       THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT      ON    21.01.2026     AND   COMING   ON    FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:
                               -3-
                                    CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022




                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. by the

complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated

19.08.2021 in S.C.No.50/2020 on the file of Additional

District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, U.K., Karwar (Special

Court for Trial of Cases filed under POCSO Act, 2012) (for

short, 'Trial Court'), acquitting the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4

and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they

were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and

clarity.

3. Based on the final report submitted by the

Investigating Officer i.e., Circle Inspector of Kumta Circle in

Crime No.33/2020, the learned Sessions Judge has taken

cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 376

and 506 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act,

2012.

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

4. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on

20.10.2019 at 09.30 a.m. accused has committed rape on

the victim girl knowing fully well that she is minor by giving

some eatables and ice cream to her, situated at House

No.81/A at Gokarna Dubbanashasi Village in Nadumaskeri

Village Panchayath within the limits of Gokarna Police

Station. It is the case of prosecution that accused entered

the house of victim when no one was there in her house on

the pretext of requesting a cup of water for drinking; when

the victim girl opened the door and went inside the house to

bring water, he followed her, entered the kitchen, held her

mouth with hands and threatened her that if she makes cry

and hue, he would kill her parents; tied her hands with

nylon rope, removed her clothes, removed his clothes and

committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter,

committed sexual intercourse 2-3 times and because of that

she became pregnant and she was 6 months pregnant at

the time of lodging of complaint; He threatened her that if

she informs the same to anyone, he would kill her parents

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

and because of that fear, victim has not intimated about the

incident to anyone.

5. On 28.04.2020 at 02.00 p.m., C.W.28 PSI of

Gokarna Police Station has received E-mail from Kumta

Police Station that a minor victim girl is pregnant for 25

weeks and after receiving that E-mail, he has also received

MLC from C.W.28, who has received it from Canara Health

Care Centre, Kumta. Thereafter, C.W.28 visited

Dubbanashasi Village and visited the house of complainant

and then came to know that victim had been to Canara

Health Care Centre, Kumta and then he obtained the phone

number of complainant, contacted her through phone and

requested her to lodge the complaint. Afterwards at 07.00

p.m., he received the complaint given by first informant

(mother of victim), got registered Crime No.33/2020 and

submitted FIR to the Court. Thereafter, C.W.28 handed over

the case file for further investigation to C.W.29 and C.W.29

directed C.W.28 to produce the accused; accordingly

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

C.W.28 with his officials went to the house of accused,

caught hold him and produced before C.W.29.

6. According to C.W.29, on 28.04.2020, he received

a phone call from C.W.28 and came to know about

registration of case and then he came to Gokarna police

station and conducted further investigation; at that time,

enquired the victim girl, her parents; as per his directions,

C.W.28 produced accused before him at 23.30 hours, he

enquired the accused and arrested him; he has given

memorandum for arrest of accused. He conducted the spot

panchanama, drew spot sketch, recorded the statements of

witnesses, make arrangements to produce the victim before

court to record her statement under S.164 Cr.P.C., he has

drawn another panchanama after recording statement of

victim under S.164 Cr.P.C., and seized the rope used for

commission of the offence; he subjected the minor girl and

accused for medical examination. He has obtained report

from the doctors. He has obtained the school documents of

victim girl to know her date of birth. Afterwards, he has

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

filed charge-sheet against accused person alleging the

aforesaid offences. Afterwards, victim girl has given birth to

a child and then with the permission of Court, he has

obtained blood samples of the victim, accused and the child

and then submitted to FSL for examination. Afterwards, the

incoming officer has received the report from FSL and

produced before the Court.

7. After filing the charge sheet, the Trial Court has

taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections

376 and 506 IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

after hearing arguments of both sides, charge was framed

for the aforesaid offences by learned Special Judge. Accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial when the charge was

read over and explained to him.

8. On behalf of prosecution, 17 witnesses were

examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17. Exs.P.1 to P.38 and M.O.1

were marked before the learned Special Judge. On behalf of

the accused, at the time of cross-examination, one

document was marked as Ex.C.1.

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

9. After completion of the evidence of prosecution,

statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded by putting all incriminatory substance available

against the accused by the learned Special Judge. Accused

has denied the case of prosecution in toto in the said

statement and has not submitted any defence evidence, but

he has filed his written submissions.

10. After hearing arguments of both sides, the

learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that accused

is not guilty of the offences alleged against him and the

offences alleged against him are not proved beyond

reasonable doubt and thereby acquitted the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and

also Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

11. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the

complainant being the mother of victim, through the

assistance of DLSA, has filed the present appeal.

12. Heard arguments of both sides.

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

13. Learned counsel for appellant Smt.Anuradha

Deshpande would submit that the case was registered on

28.04.2020 at 07.00 p.m. based on the complaint given by

the mother of the victim, the first informant. Prior to

27.04.2020, victim and her mother were not aware about

what happened to the victim. Only when victim told that

she was suffering from stomach pain, she was taken to the

hospital on 27.04.2020 by the mother of the victim. After

examining the victim, the doctor asked victim and her

mother to come on next day and in the meanwhile, the

doctor has given MLC intimation to Kumta Police Station,

who in turn has given intimation to Gokarna Police Station.

Hence, Gokarna Police have visited the house of

complainant. But complainant and victim were not in the

house and they had been to Canara Health Care Centre,

Kumta. Only on 28.04.2020 when the victim and her

mother had been to the hospital, the doctor told about the

pregnancy of the victim and told them to lodge a complaint.

- 10 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

14. After thorough investigation, charge-sheet is filed

against accused. On 29.07.2020, the victim has given birth

to a baby boy, which was given to the Child Welfare Center

to initiate legal process for adoption of the baby. On

03.02.2020, I.O. has taken permission of the Court to take

the victim, accused and the child for DNA examination.

Accordingly, on 05.02.2020 he obtained said permission

and on 11.02.2020 he has collected the blood samples of

victim, child and the accused through doctor before the

learned JMFC and it was sent to DNA Center, Bengaluru and

accordingly DNA report received that there was no match of

DNA between accused and the child. However, DNA report

alone cannot be the basis to decide the case of present

nature. The Trial Court has not appreciated the facts in a

proper manner. The Trial Court ought to have taken second

DNA test. But, instead of doing so, the Court acquitted the

accused. Even though the complainant had been to the

police station at 01.30 p.m., she was made to sit up to

07.00 p.m. in the police station, and then, the complaint

was registered. The complainant and victim are villagers

- 11 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

and not worldly wise and were not aware of pregnancy of

the victim. These facts are not properly appreciated by the

Trial Court. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and to

convict the accused.

15. Learned Additional SPP supported the case of

prosecution and the arguments of learned counsel for

appellant and also prayed for conviction of the accused.

16. Per contra, learned counsel for

accused/respondent No.1 Sri R.H.Angadi would submit that

there is no clinching and proper evidence produced before

the Trial Court to show that the accused has committed the

offences alleged against him. There are so many

exaggerations and improvements in the evidence of

complainant and the victim. The delay in filing the

complaint is not at all explained. The DNA report clinches

the issue and it shows that there is no involvement of

accused in committing the alleged offences. Considering

these aspects, rightly, learned Special Judge has acquitted

- 12 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

the accused. Hence, it needs no interference. Hence, prayed

for dismissal of appeal.

17. Having heard the arguments of both sides and

upon verifying appeal papers along with Trial Court records,

the points that would arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has

committed the offences alleged against him?

2. Whether the judgment of acquittal of Trial

Court warrants any interference?

18. Our findings on these points are in NEGATIVE

for the following:

REASONS

19. This is the appeal filed by victim against the

judgment of acquittal. An acquittal order cannot be lightly

interfered with by the Appellate Court, though it has wide

powers to review the evidence and come to its own

conclusion as per Sections 378 and 386 of Cr.P.C. This

- 13 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

power is to be exercised with due care and caution because

the presumption of innocence in favour of accused is further

strengthened by the acquittal of an accused. In this regard,

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa vs.

State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 has

laid down the general principles regarding the powers of

Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an

order of acquittal, which reads as follows.

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-

appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against

- 14 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

20. The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

and principles noted down in the aforesaid judgment are

reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sampat

Babso Kale vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019)

4 SCC 739. This judgment is followed by a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.200098/2019

dated 24.04.2020 of Kalaburagi Bench.

- 15 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

21. With this background the facts of the present

case are to be analyzed.

22. Initially on 27.04.2020, the victim has been

taken to Canara Health Care Centre, Kumta and after

examining her, the doctor told victim and her mother to

come on next day. In the meanwhile, the doctor confirmed

himself that the victim was pregnant for 25 weeks and she

is minor and hence he has given information to Kumta

police station, who in turn has given information to Gokarna

Police Station. On 28.04.2020 when victim and her parents

had been to the hospital, they were directed to lodge

complaint and they were also informed that the victim is

pregnant for 25 weeks. According to the case of

prosecution, till then they were not aware that victim was

pregnant.

23. In this regard, in the evidence, mother of victim-

P.W.8 has deposed that during April-2020, victim was

having giddiness problem and hence she was taken to the

doctor. On 27.04.2020 she was again taken to the hospital

- 16 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

because victim told that she was suffering from stomach

pain. There, the doctor conducted scanning told them to

come on next day. Thus, only on the next day, she was

aware about this incident. But her cross-examination

reveals that before they had been to Canara Health Care

Centre, Kumta, 4-5 times, the victim was taken to

Dr.Hosamani. Thus, the mother of victim was definitely

aware about pregnancy of the victim much earlier to they

had been to Canara Health Care Centre.

24. The victim also in her cross-examination has

deposed that she and her mother had been to Dr.Hosamani

at Gokarna and he is a very famous doctor in Gokarna and

he examined her 4-5 times. They had been to said hospital

because she was having pain in her abdomen. She had

informed Dr.Hosamani that she was not having regular

menstrual cycle. According to the victim the incident had

taken place on 20.10.2019. In Ex.P.19, the last menstrual

date is mentioned as 30.10.2019. Thus, even after the

alleged date of incident, the victim had a menstrual cycle

- 17 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

and therefore, only after 30.10.2019, the incidence of rape

has occurred.

25. In this regard, learned counsel for appellant

would vehemently submit that in the complaint and also in

her evidence, the victim has specifically stated that 2-3

times the accused has committed rape on her and hence

the date 20.10.2019 is not so material and afterwards also

the incident of rape had taken place and thus the victim

became pregnant after 30.10.2019.

26. It is to be noted here that the DNA report as per

Ex.C.1 reveals that the victim is the biological mother of the

child, which was born on 29.07.2020 at Karwar Institute of

Medical Science, but accused is not its biological father.

27. The birth certificate of victim is produced. P.W.5

is the Headmaster of Anand Ashrama High School, Benki

Kottla, wherein the victim studied. Her date of birth was

given by this witness to the police as per their requisition.

He has produced her school certificate consisting the date of

birth and the copy of register and school T.C. According to

- 18 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

these documents, the date of birth of victim is 30.10.2006

and he has given said date based on the school T.C., which

was received from primary school. Thus, the victim was

minor as on the date of alleged incident.

28. The learned Sessions Judge on examining

materials has come to the conclusion that victim was minor

as on the date of alleged incident. This observation and

finding of learned Sessions Judge is not challenged by

accused. Hence, as it is already established that the victim

was minor as on the date of alleged incident, now the only

thing to be decided is 'whether accused had sexual

intercourse with the victim and he is the cause for her

pregnancy'.

29. As discussed above, already DNA report is

received saying that accused is not the cause for pregnancy

of the victim. Even though DNA report is negative, the

evidence of prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside. However,

it is to be verified with due care and caution.

- 19 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

30. The conduct and attitude of victim and her

parents is to be looked into. Even though the alleged

incident had taken place on 20.10.2019 and subsequently

also, it was not noticed by either of the parents of the

victim. Only on 27.04.2020 they had been to Canara Health

Care Centre and on 28.04.2020 they came to know about

the incident. This fact needs to be analyzed properly

because 6 months after the alleged incident i.e., when

victim was pregnant for about 6 months, they came to

know about this incident, which is not a believable thing.

This is more so because victim was examined by

Dr.Hosamani in Gokarna and her mother accompanied to

the doctor about 4-5 times, prior to they had been to

Canara Health Care Centre, Kumta.

31. Furthermore, on 28.04.2020 when complaint was

lodged, it is only stated that when nobody was there in the

house, accused came from back side i.e., when victim had

been to kitchen to bring water and hugged her, forced her

and removed his clothes and her clothes and committed

- 20 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

sexual intercourse with her. At that time there is no whisper

about tying the hands of the victim. However, only some

days afterwards when the victim had been to the Court and

when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was

recorded, for the first time she has stated about tying of her

hands with rope.

32. Immediately after lodging complaint on

29.04.2020, I.O. has conducted spot panchanama and at

that time according to victim and other witnesses, he was in

their house for about 1-1.5 hours and verified the spot

carefully. But at that time the alleged rope was not seized.

According to the parents of victim, they have shown the

rope to the police on the day of conducting spot

panchanama itself, but it was not seized. Again on

05.04.2020, the I.O. has conducted another panchanama

under which this rope as per M.O.1 was seized. This is the

rope used by fishermen and it will be available in all the

houses of fishermen as admitted by all the witnesses. The

victim categorically admitted in her cross-examination that

- 21 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

at first instance the rope was not seized by the police. Thus,

it is clear that after lodging the complaint, they are making

improvements in the case.

33. The accused is the owner of the boat in which

both accused and father of the victim were going to the sea

to catch fish. There is no evidence to show that there is

enmity between accused and the father of victim. Accused

was going with father of victim to bring fish as per the

cross-examination of victim.

34. The sum and substance of the evidence produced

before the Court reveals that there is substantial

improvement in the case of complainant and victim by

adding rope to their case some days after lodging the

complaint. There is inordinate delay of 6 months in lodging

the complaint which is not explained. Further, the DNA

report is not in favour of the prosecution. On the other

hand, it is in favour of accused.

35. When there is inordinate delay in lodging the

complaint, DNA report assumes importance, which is not in

- 22 -

CRL.A NO.100151 OF 2022

favour of prosecution. Hence, in the absence of cogent

evidence against accused, relying on the evidence of

prosecutrix alone, who has made improvement in her case,

the conviction cannot be recorded against accused.

Considering these aspects meticulously, the learned

sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the

prosecution has not proved the guilt against accused and

acquitted him.

36. Having independently assessed the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses and having carefully examined

the material on record, we are of the considered view that

the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the

accused for the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

37. Hence the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal filed under section 372 Cr.P.C., is dismissed

by confirming the judgment of acquittal dated

19.08.2021 in S.C.No.50/2020 on the file of

Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, U.K.,