Ramachandra vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1892 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Ramachandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2026

                           -1-
                                     CRL.A No.1357 of 2024

                                                             R
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1357 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

RAMACHANDRA
S/O. THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
AUTORICKSHAW DRIVER
R/O RATHNASANDRA-GOLLARAHATTI,
KASABA HOBLI, TALUKA SIRA,
DISTRICT TUMKUR-572 137.
                                          ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
 SRI. NITYANAND V. NAIK, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
       KALLAMBELLA POLICE STATION,
       TALUKA SIRA, DISTRICT TUMKUR
       REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BANGALORE. 560 001

2.     VICTIM GIRL,
       RESENTED BY FATHER
       LINGAPPA S/O DYAMAPPA,
       68 YEARS,
       R/O RATHNASANDRA-GOLLARAHATTI,
       KASABA HOBLI, TALUKA SIRA,
       DISTRICT TUMKUR-572 137.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1,
 SRI. RAJATH H.V., ADV. FOR R2.)
                                 -2-
                                           CRL.A No.1357 of 2024




     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DATED 03.12.2022 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
19.12.2022 IN SPL.C.NO.206/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FAST TRACK SPECIAL
COURT-I) TUMAKURU AND BY ACQUITTING HIM OF THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM
SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012, 366 AND 376 OF IPC ALLEGED
AGAINST HIM.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   09.01.2026  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                           CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of

conviction and order on sentence dated 03rd December, 2022

passed in Spl.C. No.206 of 2020 by the Additional District and

Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Tumakuru (for short "the trial

Court").

2. It is the case of prosecution that Circle Inspector of

Police, Rural Circle, Sira, laid a charge sheet against the

accused for the offence under Sections 343, 363, 376(1) of

Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 and

10 of Child Marriage Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that

on 22nd May, 2020 at around 06.30 a.m. within the limits of

Kallambella Police Station jurisdiction, in land bearing Sy.No.17

of Ratnasandra Village which belongs to CW1/PW2, the accused

enticed PW1, forcibly abducted her and took her to Shri

Prasanna Parvathi and Shri Nanjundeshwara Swamy Temple in

Arakere Village and tied mangala-sutra to her neck and also put

toe ring on her toe, and then took her to a room on the first

floor of the previously rented house belonging to CW12. There,

the accused wrongfully confined her for 3 days from 22nd to

25th May, 2020 and forcibly had sex every day with PW2 victim,

who is a minor. Thus, the accused has committed the

aforesaid/ offence.

3. After laying charge-sheet, the accused was arrested and

was produced before the Special Court and was remanded to

judicial custody. From the date of arrest, till this day, the

accused is in judicial custody.

4. After submitting charge sheet, cognizance was taken by

the Special Court and case was registered in Special Case No.

206 of 2020. Upon hearing the charges, the trial Court has

framed charges for commission of alleged offences. Same were

read over and explained to the accused. Having understood

the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, 12 witnesses

were examined by prosecution as PWs1 to 12. 29 documents

were marked as Exhibits P1 to P29 and seventeen material

objects were marked as MOs.1 to 17. On closure of

prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section

313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused

has totally denied the evidence of prosecution, however, he did

not choose to lead any defence on his behalf. But during the

course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, two

documents were marked as Exhibits D1 and D2. Having heard

the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the

accused for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act read with

Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and passed sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years

with fine of ₹50,000/-. Further, the accused is sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the

offence under Section 366 Indian Penal Code with fine of

₹10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order on sentence, the accused/appellant has preferred this

appeal.

5. Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the counsel for the appellant, would submit that

Investigating Officer has not produced the original copy of birth

certificate of the victim. Exhibit P23- Birth Certificate is only a

Xerox copy, in which the name of the victim is not shown. In

view of Section 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,

1969, within one year, the concerned authority has to implead

the name of the child, but the same is not done here.

Therefore, this document will not be of any help to the case of

the prosecution to prove the age of the victim.

6. He would further submit that Exhibit P18 is not a birth

certificate extract or School Admission Register Extract. It is

only a communication of fact that the school authorities have

issued the same at the request of the Investigating Officer, and

the same is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of KALIRAM v. STATE OF

HIMACHAL PRADESH reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808 and VINOD

CHATURVEDI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

reported in (1984)2 SCC 350, the learned Counsel submits that

these documents are inadmissible. That the documents cannot

be admitted in evidence and it cannot be used against the

accused. In this regard, he has relied on the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MALAY KUMAR GANGULY

v. DR. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS reported in

(2009)9 SCC 221. Absolutely, there is no admissible document

to prove the age of the victim. Additionally, the Investigating

Officer has not collected the certificate as required under

Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2015.

7. Since the prosecution has not produced the relevant

documents to prove the age of the child as on the date of

commission of offence, the question of constituting the offence

under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 does not arise. In this regard, he has relied on the

decisions in of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of ALAMELU

AND ANOTHER v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF

POLICE reported in (2011)2 SCC 385 and MANAK CHAND ALIAS

MANI v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC

1397. He would submit that the author of the document is not

examined by the prosecution. PW10-Head Mistress was not

working as a teacher at the time of admission of this child and

there is no evidence to show as to who has given the date of

birth to the concerned school at the time of admission. When

the author is not examined, merely marking the document as

exhibit does not amount to proof. In this regard, he has relied

on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

NARBADA DEVI GUPTA v. BIRENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND

ANOTHER reported in (2003)8 SCC 745. The same is followed

by another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

MALAY KUMAR GANGULY (supra). Xerox copy of the document

is not admissible in evidence in view of decisions of Hon'ble

Supreme court in the cases of H.SIDDIQUI (DEAD) BY LRS. v.

A. RAMALINGAM reported in (2011)4 SCC 240, RAKESH

MOHINDRA v. ANITA BERI AND OTHERS reported in (2016)16

SCC 482; J.YASHODA v. J.SHOBHA RANI reported in (2007)5

SCC 730 and another decision of this Court rendered in

Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2014 in the case of MAHADEVU @

PAPPI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA.

8. The victim has voluntarily accompanied the accused as

both were in love with each other while studying in high school.

They were classmates and known to each other. The act

between the Appellant and victim is consensual. Admittedly,

victim has a mobile, however, call details are not collected by

the I.O. In the absence of the material placed on evidence, the

adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. In

this regard, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of TOMASO BRUNO AND ANOTHER v. STATE

OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178. On all

these grounds, it was sought for allowing the appeal.

9. On the other hand, Sri Rajat H.V., learned Counsel

appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that though the

prosecution has not produced the original birth certificate, the

same is not fatal in view of Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care &

Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. In this regard, he has

relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2013)7

SCC 263. In Exhibit P8, it is clearly stated as to the date of

birth of the victim. PW10, who has issued the certificate, has

clearly deposed as to the date of birth of the victim. Since the

date of birth is proved under Exhibit P8, the same is sufficient

to prove the age of the victim, though the Xerox copy is

marked. Accused is not a classmate of the victim. He is

married and has three children. He is 27 years old. The trial

Court has properly appreciated the materials on record in

proper perspective and there are no grounds to interfere with

impugned judgment of conviction. Hence, sought for dismissal

of the appeal.

10. The learned High Court Government Pleader Sri B.

Lakshman appearing for the respondent-State, would support

the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence

and submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated the

evidence on record and has passed the impugned judgment.

There is no ground for interference in this appeal. Accordingly,

he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal

of materials placed before this court, the following points would

arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all

reasonable doubt that the victim was child as

defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012,

as on the date of commission of alleged

offence?

2. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting

the accused for the offence under Sections 366

and 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of

POCSO Act?

3. What order?

12. My answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1: in the negative;

Point No.2: in the negative;

Point No.3: as per final order.

- 10 -

Regarding Points 1 and 2:

13. I have examined the materials placed before this court.

The Circle Inspector of Police, Sira, submitted the charge sheet

against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 343,

363 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code; Section 6 of the POCSO

Act and Sections 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Act. It is alleged

by the prosecution that on 22nd May, 2020, at around 06.30

a.m. within the limits of Kallambella Police Station jurisdiction,

in land bearing Sy.No.17 of Ratnasandra Village which belongs

to CW1/PW2, the accused enticed PW2/PW1, forcibly abducted

her and took her to Shri Prasanna Parvathi and Shri

Nanjundeshwara Swamy Temple in Arakere Village and tied

mangala-sutra to PW2 and also put toe ring on her toe and

then took PW2 to a room on the first floor of a previously

rented house. There, the accused wrongfully confined her for 3

days from 22nd to 25th May, 2020 and forcibly had sex every

day with PW2-victim, who is a minor. Thus, the accused has

committed the aforesaid offences. To substantiate the case,

Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as PWs1 to 12. 29

documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P29 and seventeen

material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 17. To prove the

age of the victim, the IO has adduced the evidence of victim

- 11 -

PW1. PW2 is the father of victim. PW7-Puttlingappa is the

uncle of CW1. PW8-Smt. Usha is the elder sister of victim.

PW9-Dr. Shobha is the Medical Officer, PW10 Smt. L.M.

Anusuya is the Headmistress of Government Higher Primary

School, Rathnasandra and PW12-Shivakumar is the

Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has produced

the copy of the complaint filed by victim as per Exhibit P1.

Exhibit P9 is the Medico Legal Examination Report of sexual

violence pertaining to victim. Statement of victim is recorded

under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure. School

certificate is marked as Exhibit P18. Exhibit P22 is the covering

letter addressed by the Headmistress of Government Higher

Primary School, Ratnasandra to the Circle Inspector of Police,

Sira Rural Circle. Exhibit P23 is the birth certificate issued by

the concerned authority.

14. A careful examination of the entire oral and documentary

evidence makes it clear that, the victim and other witnesses

have stated the age of the victim at the time of commission of

offence as 17 years. With regard to the documentary evidence

is concerned, the victim has specifically stated in her evidence

that her date of birth is 28th November, 2002. As per the

evidence of prosecution witnesses, the alleged incident took

- 12 -

place on 26th May, 2022. At that point in time, the age of

victim comes to 17 years, 5 months, 28 days.

15. In the backdrop of the arguments advanced on behalf of

the appellant, this court has to examine the evidence placed by

the prosecution.

As regards Exhibit P23 copy of Birth Certificate:

16. Exhibit P23 is not the original or the certified copy of the

birth certificate, but it is only a Xerox copy. In the said birth

certificate, the name of the victim is not shown and the same is

left blank. However, with regards to sex, it is shown as

'female' and date of birth as '28th November, 2002'; Place of

birth is shown as 'Kenchayyanapalya'; Name of father is shown

as 'Lingappa' and Name of mother is shown as 'Chandramma'.

The Date of registration is 30th November, 2002. In view of

Section 10 of Registration of Births and Death Act, 1969, within

one year, the concerned Authority has to implead the name of

the child, but the same is not done in the case on hand. The

reason for non-compliance of Section 10 of Registration of

Births and Death Act has not been explained by the

prosecution. It is settled principle of law that mere production

and marking of documents as exhibits is not enough to prove

- 13 -

the content of the document as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of NARBADA DEVI GUPTA. The said principle is also

reiterated in the decision of H SIDDIQUI (supra). The

investigating officer has not whispered anything as to why he

has not examined the author of the document Exhibit P23 and

as to why he has not collected the original copy of the said

document. Reason for non-entering the name of the child in

the birth certificate as per Section 10 of Registration of Births

and Deaths Act is also not disclosed by the prosecution. For the

aforementioned reasons, as also relying on the above decisions,

I am of the opinion that Exhibit P23 is not proved by the

prosecution in accordance with law. Accordingly, Exhibit P23

will not be of any help to the case of prosecution to prove the

age of the victim.

As regards Exhibit P18-School Certificate:

17. This copy of the school document is in Kannada language

which is stated as "±Á¯Á zÁR¯Áw £ÀPÀ®Ä" (Shalaa daakhalaati

nakalu). This document is issued by the Headmistress of

Government Higher Primary School, Ratnasandra, Sira Taluk.

In column number 4, the date of birth is shown as 28th

November, 2002. To prove this document, the prosecution has

examined PW10-Anasuya L.M. Headmistress of the School.

- 14 -

She has deposed in her evidence as to issuance of the

certificate Exhibit P18. During the course of our cross-

examination, she has clearly admitted that at the time of

admission of the school, she was not working in the said

school. She has stated that on the basis of School Admission

Register and the birth certificate of the victim, she has issued

Exhibit P18. But the said School Admission Register extract

and the birth certificate of the deceased are not produced

before the court. The investigating officer has not explained

anything as to non-production of school admission register

extract or the birth certificate. While discussing regarding

Exhibit P23-birth certificate, this Court has already discussed

that in Exhibit P23 the name of the victim is not shown. When

such being the case, on what basis the Headmistress has

mentioned the date of birth, is not known. If PW10 has issued

Exhibit P18 on the basis of birth certificate, the investigating

officer could have collected the said document and produced

before the court. But he has not done so. Hence, Exhibit P18

is not sufficient to prove the age of the age of the victim.

Hence, the question of constituting the offence punishable

under the penal provisions of POCSO Act, 2012, does not arise.

- 15 -

As regards Medical Certificate:

18. The doctor has shown the age of the victim as 17 years in

the medico legal examination certificate. But the doctor has not

examined the age of victim as required under Section 27 of

POCSO Act and Section 164A of CrPC. Rule 12(3) of Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 provides

the same hierarchy of documents as provided in Section 94 of

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. In

the case on hand, the investigating officer has not produced the

certified copy of birth certificate or examined the author of the

document. There is no authenticated record to believe that the

school authorities have entered the date of birth based on the

birth certificate. When there is no authenticity to the legal

evidence as to the date of birth of the victim, investigating

officer should have obtained the ossification test certificate

from the medical board. The same is also not produced.

Further, it is admitted by PW1 that she was studying in

Government Junior Girls Pre-University College, Sira. However,

the investigating officer has not produced the matriculation or

equivalent certificate. When PW1 was studying in First Year

- 16 -

PUC at the relevant of point of time, the investigating officer

could have collected the same from the concerned authorities.

19. In the absence of these material evidence, adverse

inference can be drawn against the prosecution that if those

documents were to be produced, same will go against the

prosecution. In the absence of these material witnesses and

relying on the aforesaid decisions placed by the learned

Counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the

prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a child as

defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of

incident.

20. The trial court has framed charges against the accused

for commission of offence under Sections 366, 343 and 376 of

Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has acquitted the accused

for the offence under Section 343 of Indian Penal Code. To

prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 366 and 376 of

Indian Penal Code is concerned, in Exhibit P1-statement of the

victim, she has clearly stated that every day when she was

going to school, she was talking with the accused. She and the

accused were in love with each other. Further, it is stated that

the accused had promised her that he will marry her.

- 17 -

21. In Exhibit P9-Medico Legal Examination Report of Sexual

Violence, in Column 1(vii) 'Description of incident in the words

of narrator' of 15.A- History of Sexual violence, it is stated as

under:

"Kum. xxx xxx xxx she is giving history that on

22.05.2020 morning she went to field at around 6.00 am to pluck flowers. Meanwhile, Mr. Ramachandra took her forcefully to the place Oorukere by luggage auto. From there to Arkere by walk then made her to stay in a room was everything fundamentally arranged by him. While going, on the way only he tied mangalya and on that day night they both had sexual contact. He made her to sleep on her and he slept and kissed all over the body ...... penetration of penis to her vagina. She is giving history that 3-4 times he had sexual contact with her before this incident. On 23, 24 and 25, they stayed there itself. He use to cook there in the room and he did not allow her to go outside. He destroyed her mobile sim everything on 25.5.2020 night 12.00 am with police and her brother, they surrendered to Police. She says that she in sexual contact with him 3-4 times before also."

It also reveals that there are no external injuries seen on the

body of the victim.

22. In Exhibit P10-statement under Section 164(5) of Code of

Criminal Procedure, the victim has clearly deposed that after

completion of PUC, she was in love with accused.

- 18 -