[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Punitha on 6 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
CRL.A No. 525 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH 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.525 OF 2018 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HULIYAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITIONAL S.P.P.)
AND:
1. PUNITHA
S/O. LATE HODDIGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
2. THIMMAKKA
C/O. KARIYAPPA
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court
of Karnataka 3. KUMARANNA
S/O. YELLADHAKERI KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
4. PAVAN
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
5. HORAKERAPPA
S/O. LATE PURADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
6. SUBBANNA
S/O. ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
CRL.A No. 525 of 2018
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT GAVIYAPPANAPALYA
DHASODI MAJURE HULIYAR HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR-572 218.
7. RANGAIAH
S/O. LATE MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT LINGARAJUPURA
SHIVAKATTE, HESARAGATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU.
8. LATHAMMA
S/O. HODDIGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT GAVIYAPPANAPALYA
DHASODI MAJURE HULIYAR HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR-572 218.
9. REVANNA SIDDAIAH
S/O. LATE BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDENT OF DHASODI (GAVIYAPPANAPALYA)
C.N. HALLI, HULIYAR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 TO R-8;
SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE, FOR R-9)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 17-10-2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, IN SPECIAL CASE
NO.180 OF 2017, ACQUITTING ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 8/RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 8 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
366, 366A, 344 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, UNDER
SECTIONS 9 AND 10 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE
ACT, 2006, AND UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
CRL.A No. 525 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for
the appellant-State, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
to 8-accused Nos.1 to 8, and the learned counsel for
respondent No.9-de facto complainant.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that on 06.10.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., when PW12-victim
went outside the house to attend nature call, the accused came
from behind, abducted her and forcibly took her to Bengaluru
and then to Kadiri Narasimha Swamy Temple in Andhra
Pradesh, where accused No.1 forcibly married the victim
without her consent. Thereafter, accused No.1 and the victim
started living in Dhanachari Grama. Accused No.1 without her
consent, subjected her for sexual assault and he also
threatened her that he would kill her, if she informs the said
fact to her parents.
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
3. Based on the complaint of PW1, father of the victim,
Crime No.105 of 2016 was registered for the offence punishable
under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
'IPC'). After investigation, the Police filed the charge-sheet
against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under
Sections 366, 366A, 344 and 506 of IPC, under Sections 9 and
10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and under
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act'). The accused were secured,
they did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, the
prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and got marked Exs.P1 to
P16 and MOs.1 to 9. After closure of the evidence, the
statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') but
they did not lead any defence evidence. The trial Court, having
considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the
conclusion that the evidence available on record do not inspire
confidence of the Court and accordingly, acquitted these
accused. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State
has preferred the present appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
4. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the
appellant-State would contend that the trial Court committed
error in acquitting these accused. The material available on
record clearly point out the role of all the accused and the same
has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. She would
contend that the trial Court has not properly considered the
evidence of the victim, who deposed about the accused
kidnapping her, forcibly marrying her and subjecting her for
sexual intercourse without her consent. The evidence of PW12-
victim fully corroborates with the evidence of other witnesses
and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. She also contends that the trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence of PW11-Headmaster of the School,
where the victim was studying. PW11 categorically deposed
that Ex.P10-Study Certificate issued by the School for having
made the entry in the School records at the time of admission
of the victim and hence, the trial Court ought not to have
disbelieved the said document. It is settled principle that the
School documents are admissible as the proof of the Date of
Birth, but in spite of the same, the trial Court has not
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
considered the same and has come to the conclusion that the
prosecution is not able to prove that the victim was minor. She
also contend that the trial Court has failed to draw the
statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act in
favour of the victim that she was subjected to sexual act, after
forcibly marrying her and presumption also not rebutted though
the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. has categorically stated how the accused kidnapped
her, forcibly married her and thereafter, subjected her for
sexual intercourse without her consent. These aspects were
not taken note by the trial Court. Hence, she prays for
conviction against the accused.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.9-de facto
complainant reiterates the submissions made by the learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and
also contend that the trial Court committed error in not
appreciating the evidence available on record in proper
perspective. Further, the evidence of PW12-victim points out
that the role of the accused, but the same has not been
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
considered by the trial Court. Hence, she prays for allowing the
appeal.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
to 8/accused Nos.1 to 8 would vehemently contend that the
trial Court has in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.8 and 9
with regard to age of the victim. Though the prosecution relies
on that it was kidnap, forcible marriage, subjected the victim
for sexual intercourse without her consent and confining her in
the house, however, the victim, at no point of time, has
screamed or brought the said fact to the notice of anyone.
Even, the evidence of PW12-victim is very clear that she was
taken to Bengaluru and then to Andhra Pradesh in Bus.
Marriage of the victim and accused No.1 was held in Andhra
Pradesh, however, at no point of time, the victim has brought
to the notice of any persons though she was travelled along
with other accused in public transport and the same is
discussed in detail in paragraph Nos.10 to 20 of the judgment
of the trial Court. All these factors were taken note by the trial
Court and it has come to the conclusion that the evidence
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
available on record do not inspire confidence of the Court and
rightly acquitted these accused.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the material available on record, the point that
would arise for the consideration of this Court is:
"Whether the trial Court committed error in
acquitting these accused for the offences invoked
against them?"
8. Having heard the respective learned counsel for the
parties and perusal of material available on record, the case of
the prosecution is that on 06.10.2016 at about 11.00 p.m.
when PW12-victim went outside the house to attend nature
call, the accused came from behind, abducted her, and forcibly
took her to Kadiri Narasimha Swamy Temple, Andhra Pradesh,
and accused No.1 forcibly married her and subjected her for
sexual intercourse without her consent. It is further case of the
prosecution that other accused, i.e. accused Nos.2 to 8, helped
accused No.1 to perform his marriage with the victim, though
she was a minor.
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
9. No doubt, the prosecution relies on the evidence of
PW1 to PW15 and the documentary evidence on record. The
statement of the victim-PW12 as per Ex.P14 is that on
06.10.2016, after having dinner, she was sleeping in the house
and at around 10 O'clock, when she came outside of her house
to attend nature call, accused No.1 came suddenly, held her,
forced her to marry and also threatened her that if she does
not agree for marriage, he will commit suicide by consuming
poison and alternatively, he stated that he is going to kidnap
her. When the victim refused to go along with him, accused
No.1 threatened her that if she screams, he is going to kill her
and kidnapped her in a bus to Bengaluru and from there, he
again took her to Andhra Pradesh and on 07.10.2016, at Kadiri
Narasimha Swamy Temple, accused No.1 forcibly tied Mangalya
Sutra and instructed her to lead life with him. He took her to
Dhanachari Village, where he took a house for rent and
confined her. It is also her statement that since she was not
aware of the language of the particular place, she stayed in the
house itself and accused No.1 used to go for coolie work and
subjected her for sexual intercourse from the date of marriage
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
to 09.01.2017. On 09.01.2017, Huliyar Police apprehended
accused No.1 and the victim. Based on a complaint given by
the father of the victim, the Police brought her back to her
native. Hence, she requested to take action against accused
No.1. Having considered this statement of the victim, at the
first instance on 10.01.2017, all allegations are made against
only accused No.1.
10. The victim gave her statement before the Magistrate
on 24.01.2017 and the same is marked as Ex.P11. In this
statement, she categorically says that her maternal aunt came
home and forcibly took her. After travelling for half-a-
kilometre, other accused persons came and covered her mouth
and eyes with clothes and took her to Bengaluru. On the next
date morning, they took her to Kadiri Narasimha Swamy
Temple, where accused No.1 forcibly married her. Here, the
version of the victim was changed while giving the statement
before the Magistrate.
11. Further, the evidence of the victim is also contrary
before the Court, wherein she says that the accused persons
came near her house and called her, and when she was
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
opening the door, all of them closed her mouth and took her to
Bengaluru. She further stated that accused No.1 used to go for
work and he used to have sexual intercourse on her by giving
sleeping tablets, she was confined in a room and other accused
were visiting her once in a week.
12. PW12 was cross-examined. She categorically admits
that when they sleep inside the house, they usually lock the
door. The accused called her. Hence, she tried to wake up her
mother and since her mother did not wake up, she opened the
door.
13. Having considered Ex.P11-statement under Section
164 of Cr.P.C., Ex.P14-statement of the victim before the Police
and the oral evidence of the victim do not inspire confidence of
the Court since three different versions are stated by the
victim.
14. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 also do not inspire
confidence of the Court. PW1 says that he is father of the
victim, he gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P1 and mahazar
was drawn in terms of Ex.P2. In the cross-examination with
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
regard to the date of birth is concerned, he says that the
Doctor informed the date of birth of his daughter and he has
noted the same in one of his documents, but he is not able
produce the said document before the Court. Further, he has
admitted that he has given her daughter's date of birth to the
Village Accountant to make entry in the records and the same
will be available in the Office of the Tahsildar. He further
admitted that he has not produced the said document before
the Police, but he can produce the said document from the
Hospital. However, he relies on Ex.P10-Study Certificate, issued
by PW11-Head Master, which shows the admission entry found
in the School. When the original date of birth is available with
PW1, he ought to have produced the same before the Court.
The trial Court has discussed in detail at paragraph Nos.8 and 9
of its judgment with regard to age of the victim.
15. The other witness is PW2, mother of the victim. In
her evidence, she says that when she woke up around
12 O'clock midnight, she did not find her daughter. Hence, she
informed the same to her husband and he lodged the
complaint. In the cross-examination, she gives different
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
answers that she tried to get up her daughter at around
10.30 p.m. She also states that in the Village, people usually
do not sleep before 10.30 p.m. and while her daughter was
taken by the accused, PW8-Prakash and PW7-Shivashankara
Reddy witnessed the same, however, they did not specify the
same while lodging the complaint. It is also important to note
that though incident was taken place on 06.10.2016, the
complaint of missing was lodged by the father on 18.10.2016,
i.e. after twelve days. Accused No.1 and the victim were
secured after three and half-a-month. The trial Court, taking
note of all these material available on record, came to the
conclusion that the very story of kidnapping and also forcibly
performing the marriage of the victim with PW1 was not
accepted.
16. PW3 is a witness to seizure mahazar-Ex.P5. In the
cross-examination, a suggestion was made to this witness that
PW1 is his close friend and hence, he is deposing falsely before
the Court, however, he denied this suggestion. He also
categorically admits that accused Nos.2 to 8 were present in
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
the Village itself from the date of the victim missing and till she
was brought back to the Village.
17. PWs.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have not supported the case of
the prosecution.
18. PWs.9 and 10 are mahazar witnesses to Exs.P3
and P4.
19. PW11-Head Master, who issued Ex.P10-Study
Certificate of the victim. He has stated that based on the entry
in the School admission records, he has issued Ex.P10. He
categorically admits that he did not verify the document what
was produced while admitting the victim for the School. He
also admits that the victim's father is a President of his School.
However, he denied the suggestion that he has issued fake
Certificate to help the victim's father.
20. PW13-Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted
investigation and filed charge-sheet against these accused.
21. PW14-Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded Ex.P14-
statement of the victim.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
22. PW15-Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered an
F.I.R.
23. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are not consistent.
Further, PW12-victim herself has given different versions, i.e.
in Ex.P11-statement recorded before the Magistrate under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., Ex.P14-statement recorded before the
Police and while recording her evidence before the Court as
PW12. There are three versions given by the victim and when
such being the case, the Court cannot inspire confidence in her
evidence. The trial Court has in detail discussed with regard to
the age of the victim at paragraph Nos.8 and 9, evidence of
PW12-victim at paragraph Nos.10 to 20 and evidence of others
witnesses, which are not consistent to prove the case of the
prosecution. When the case of the prosecution is not consistent
with regard to the very crime is concerned, we do not find any
grounds to reverse the findings of the trial Court.
24. Further, this Court has noticed that, in the present
case, the Special Public Prosecutor was absent before the trial
Court and the Presiding Officer recorded the evidence of some
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
of the witnesses. The witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution while giving the evidence. When the Special
Public Prosecutor was absent while recording the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court ought to have taken
note of the same and posed question as required under Section
165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the same is
also not done.
25. It is duty of the Special Public Prosecutors to act as
an Officer of the Court, to ensure that all material facts and
evidence are fairly and accurately brought on record to prevent
miscarriage of justice, serving the collective interest of society
rather than just securing a conviction. They must scrupulously
examine witnesses, produce necessary documents, and assist
in recording the statement of the accused. Further, it is the
duty of the Presiding Officer not to sit as a spectator in the
Court, but to consider the material and if no such material are
available on record in order to elicit the truth from the
witnesses, the concerned to act under Section 165 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, and must play active role in dispensing the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
justice, evaluating material and participate actively while
recording the evidence.
26. In the case on hand, this Court noticed that the
Presiding Officer and the Special Public Prosecutor, who dealt
with the matter, are not in service. This should not happen in
future in any of the criminal cases, which amounts to
miscarriage of justice. Hence, we felt that certain directions to
be issued to the Presiding Officers and Prosecutors in order to
set it right the miscarriage of justice. Hence, we pass the
following
ORDER
i. Criminal appeal is dismissed.
ii. The Registrar General is directed to issue Circular to the
above effect to the Presiding Officers of all the criminal
Courts of the State to play proactive role in conducting
the trial as observed.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7284-DB
HC-KAR
iii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
Director of Prosecutions to issue directions to the Special
Public Prosecutors/Public Prosecutors, who are working in
the State, to act diligently and to be part of dispensation
of justice as observed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
