[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State By Ajjampura Police vs Sridhara on 8 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1042-DB
CRL.A No. 1215 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1215 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE BY AJJAMPURA POLICE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITONAL S.P.P.)
AND:
1. SRIDHARA
S/O. MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT PILLAJIANAHALLI VILLAGE
Digitally signed by JAVAGANAHALLI HOBLI, HIRIYURU TALUK
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
2. CHIKKANNA
S/O. HULAGANA CHITHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT KADUR TALUK
CHOULAHIRIYURU
NOW AT PILLAJJANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAVAGANAHALLI HOBLI
HIRIYURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1042-DB
CRL.A No. 1215 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. BALANNA
S/O. SANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT VEERAPURA HOSURU
AJJAMPURA TALUK.
PRESENTLY AT PILLAJJANNAHALLI VILLAGE
JAVAGANAHALLI HOBLI
HIRIYURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE, FOR R-3, &
R-1 AND 2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF THE CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
3-4-2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
SPL.C.NO.81 OF 2023 ACQUITTING ACCUSED NO.1/RESPONDENT
NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 343
AND 376(3) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 6 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT, AND
ACCUSED NO.2/RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 366A OF IPC AND SECTION 17 OF
POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1042-DB
CRL.A No. 1215 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This matter is listed for Admission. On perusal of the
material on record, it appears that PW1 and PW2 have
supported the case of the prosecution.
2. Though PW2-victim submits that she was subjected to
sexual act thrice by accused No.1, but the evidence of the
Doctor is very clear that when the victim was examined, her
hymen was intact. Hence, the trial Court at paragraph No.19 of
its judgment has clearly held that "the victim's evidence is not
reliable without corroboration. There is no medical evidence to
support the victim's assertion that she being sexually
assaulted. Before the Doctor, the victim told that accused No.1
committed sexual assault on her thrice". The same contention
is asserted even before the Court. However, the evidence of the
Doctor is very clear that "hymen of the victim found intact. The
intactness of the hymen also creates doubt as it is the assertion
of the victim that accused No.1 committed the sexual
intercourse thrice at one night".
NC: 2026:KHC:1042-DB
HC-KAR
3. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State as well as
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would
contend that the victim was aged 13 years and to support her
evidence, Headmaster was examined as PW14. In the case on
hand, there is no dispute with regard to the date of birth of the
victim, the victim also admitted for 8th standard and her date of
birth was entered on the basis of the Transfer Certificate.
4. While considering the offences which have been
invoked against the accused, there must be prima-facie
material to come to a conclusion that the victim was subjected
to sexual act. When the hymen of the victim was intact,
subjecting her for sexual intercourse thrice at one night cannot
be accepted. The evidence of PW2-victim was not corroborated
with the medical evidence and hence, taking note of the said
facts, the trial Court acquitted accused No.1.
5. Further, the trial Court has also clearly discussed the
role played by accused No.2 at paragraph No.22 of its
judgment with regard to kidnapping is concerned. The victim, in
her evidence, has stated that only accused No.1 had taken her.
When such material is considered by the trial Court and
NC: 2026:KHC:1042-DB
HC-KAR
appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective, we do not
find any grounds to admit the appeal. Hence, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
