[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Jaheer Vasan on 13 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
CRL.A No. 1796 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH 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.1796 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HALASOOR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. JAHEER VASAN,
Location: HIGH S/O SAMUEL,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
2. RAZIA BEGAUM,
W/O SAMUEL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.620, 6TH MAIN,
BDA QUARTERS, DOMMALUR,
BENGALURU - 560071.
3. GUNAVATHI,
W/O MANJUNATH BABU,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
CRL.A No. 1796 of 2022
HC-KAR
R/AT NO.408, BDA COLONY,
5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
DOMMALUR, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SURESHBABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE FOR R3
[APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE])
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
07.11.2019 PASSED BY THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN SPECIAL
C.C.NO.328/2017.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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)
This matter is listed for admission. Heard Smt. Rashmi
Jadhav, the learned Additional SPP appearing for the
appellant/State, Sri R. SureshBabu, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Javeed S, Amicus Curiae for
respondent No.3.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
against the accused persons is that accused No.1 had
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
kidnapped the minor victim girl on 26.04.2017 at about
2:00 p.m. from Nayandahalli Metro Station and committed rape
on her in his house and subsequently, committed penetrative
sexual assault and hence, invoked the offences punishable
under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO
Act' for short). The charges levelled against accused No.2, who
is the mother of accused No.1, is that she being the mother of
accused No.1, has abetted her son i.e., accused No.1 to commit
rape on the victim and hence, invoked Section 114 of IPC. The
accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial and
hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got
marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8. The defence have not
led any evidence, but 313 statement was recorded after
conclusion of the trial. The defence also relied upon the
evidence of D.W.1 i.e., accused No.2 and got marked the
documents at Exs.D.1 to 9 and those documents are confronted
to P.W.7 during the course of cross-examination.
3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, in paragraph No.33
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
onwards, considering the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, comes to the conclusion that alleged kidnap of the
victim cannot be accepted as she herself voluntarily went with
accused No.1 on 31.03.2017. Afterwards, both of them went
to Tirupathi and Tamil Nadu on 02.04.2017. The entire
evidence of victim clearly establishes that she was capable of
understanding the further consequences as both herself and
accused No.1 were loving each other since three years prior to
2017. The Trial Court also taken note of the alleged rape
committed by accused No.1 for the first time in the month of
November 2016 and the same was not informed to the police or
to the parents. The Trial Court taken note of that if really she
was taken forcibly by accused No.1 on 31.03.2017, certainly
she should have informed the same to her mother. But on the
same day, when she voluntarily went with accused No.1, both
of them were in Sagar hotel, thereafter went to park, where at
about 8:00 p.m. called her over phone and she has informed
that she was with accused No.1 in the park and hence, not
accepted the contention of kidnap. The Trial Court also taken
note of date of birth of the victim is shown as 09.06.2000 and
she is aged about 16 years 10 months as on 31.03.2017. The
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
important aspect is that she was meeting accused No.1 and
going with him frequently even prior to 31.03.2017. However,
though she has stated alleged rape committed by accused No.1
in the month of November 2016, subsequently also she was
going with him to many places.
4. A detailed discussion was made in paragraph No.34
by the Trial Court that complaint was given only with respect to
her missing from the house on 31.03.2017, which is marked as
Ex.P.8, which is given by her parents. The Trial Court also
taken note of medical evidence. The victim was examined on
01.04.2017 and report Ex.P.4 was given, whereas she was
alleged to be forcibly raped by accused No.1 on 31.03.2017.
The Trial Court in paragraph No.37 taken note that she was
visiting with accused No.1 to different places, hotels and
outside Bangalore and they were not strangers and both of
them were loving each other from three years and even mother
had knowledge about the same. The Trial Court also discussed
the evidence of accused No.2 in paragraph No.39 and also
taken note of Section 114 of IPC with regard to abetment is
concerned and the same is discussed in paragraph No.36. The
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
Trial Court taking into note the totality of the evidence, comes
to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove the
case against the accused, both for the offences invoked against
accused No.1 as well as accused No.2 and acquitted the
accused.
5. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused
persons, the present appeal is filed by the State.
6. The learned Additional SPP, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav,
appearing for the appellant/State would vehemently contend
that Special Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the
prosecution has proved the age of the victim P.W.2 as on the
date of the offence and when she was a minor, the Trial Court
ought to have considered that it is not a case of consent and
the accused only in a deceitful manner took her and had sexual
intercourse with her. The Trial Court given the reasons
magnifying that they were in a love affair and with consent of
the victim, sexual act was done and there is no material to
come to a conclusion that there was a forcible act and failed to
take note of the age of the victim under Section 2(d) of the
POCSO Act. In the present case, the evidence of the
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
prosecutrix and other material witnesses not only supported
the case, but the same corroborates with each other and the
same is not considered.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 i.e.,
defacto complainant, Mr. Javeed S, who is appointed as amicus
curiae, would submit that Ex.P.6 age certificate clearly discloses
that she was a minor and the certificate is also marked with
consent. When the victim was subjected to sexual act, the Trial
Court committed an error in considering the material in
paragraph No.37.
8. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2
would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in detail
considering the evidence of each of the witnesses, appreciated
the material available on record from paragraph Nos.33 to 40
and comes to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution
was not proved and there was no any forcible sexual act. The
Trial Court also taken note of that the victim along with
accused No.1 was visiting to different places and also visiting
frequently to the hotel and she was aged about 16 years 10
months even as on the date of first sexual act and all these
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
factors were taken note of by the Trial Court while acquitting
the accused persons.
9. Having heard the respective learned counsel and
also considering the material available on record, in terms of
Ex.P.6 birth certificate, the victim is aged about 16 years 10
months. It is emerged during the course of evidence of P.W.1
that both the victim as well as accused No.1 had sexual
intercourse in the room, which belongs to accused No.1.
Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 during the course of
evidence before the Trial Court, nowhere she has stated that by
taking the advantage of her age that she was a minor, accused
No.1 had sexual intercourse. But on perusal of the evidence of
P.W.1, it is very clear that both the victim and accused No.1
had sexual intercourse and there is no material that it was a
forcible intercourse or taken the advantage of that she was a
minor. No doubt, under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, child
below the age of 18 years is a minor and the Court has to take
note of the age of the victim on the date of the alleged incident
and she was aged about 16 years 10 months. Considering the
evidence of P.W.2 victim girl, nothing is stated with regard to
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
that her consent was taken in a deceitful manner by the
accused and even whenever she was called by the mother, she
was along with accused No.1 only and the same is also known
to the mother.
10. The doctor who examined the victim girl stated that
her hymen was not intact. The doctor also opined in terms of
Ex.P.4 that there was no any external injuries. The victim girl
along with accused No.1 went to Tirupathi, Tamil Nadu and
other places and also to the hotel. All these factors were taken
note of by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence
available on record after considering the evidence of each of
the witnesses, who have been examined before the Trial Court.
The Trial Court taken note of in paragraph No.33 that the
victim girl voluntarily went with accused No.1. But the charges
levelled against the accused is that he had kidnapped the
victim. But in order to prove the material with regard to kidnap
is concerned, no ingredients. The alleged kidnap of the victim
was not accepted by the Trial Court, since she herself
voluntarily went with accused No.1 on 31.03.2017. Having
considered the evidence of P.W.2 also it is very clear that there
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
was no any force. Apart from that, the Trial Court also taken
note in paragraph No.33 that both of them went to Tirupathi
and Tamil Nadu and entire evidence of the victim clearly
establishes that she was capable of understanding the further
consequences as both herself and accused No.1 were loving
each other since three years prior to 2017. It is the case that
the first sexual act was done in the year 2016 and
subsequently on 31.03.2017, but the same was not brought to
the notice of the mother or to the police. When the phone call
was made by the mother, she was along with accused No.1 in
the park and all these factors were taken note of by the Trial
Court while appreciating the evidence. P.W.2 victim girl was
capable to understand the consequences, though she was a
minor and the material available on record is very clear that
she was loving accused No.1 from last three years and both
travelled together outside Bangalore. Apart from the evidence
which has been led by D.W.1, statement of victim marked in
the cross-examination of P.W.7 i.e., Ex.D.1 is taken note of by
the Trial Court. The photographs at Exs.D.2 to 8 is very clear
that both were visiting different places and they were loving
each other. When such material is considered by the Trial
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1868-DB
HC-KAR
Court, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal, as the
same is devoid of merits and each circumstance were
appreciated by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused.
11. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The Registry is directed to pay the fee of
Rs.5,000/- to the amicus curiae.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
