[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Manikanta @ Manu on 29 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
CRL.A No. 800 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH 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.800 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
WOMEN POLICE STATION
UDUPI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
by DEVIKA M
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. MANIKANTA @ MANU
S/O SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA
NEAR JATTIGESHWARA TEMPLE
PADUKERE, MANOOR VILLAGE
BRAHMAVARA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.
2. SHIVARAMA MENDON
S/O NARASIMHA AMIN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
CRL.A No. 800 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/AT VIGNESHWARA NILAYA
HANGARAKATTE, BALAKUDRU
BRAHMAVARA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.
3. RAJU
S/O BASAVA MOGAVEERA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT KOTA PADUKERE
UDUPI - 576 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SACHIN G., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. RENUKA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 [ABSENT])
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
05.02.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, UDUPI, IN SPL.C.NO.66/2022 AND
THEREBY, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366A, 376(1) AND
354(A)(1)(i)(2) AND (D) OF IPC AND SECTION 3 R/W
SECTIONS 4, 7 R/W SECTIONS 8, 11(iii) R/W 12 OF POCSO
ACT, 2012
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
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
CRL.A No. 800 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This matter is listed for admission and we have heard
learned HCGP for the appellant-State, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State
against the judgment of acquittal for the offence punishable
under Sections 366(A), 376(1) and 354(A)(1)(i)(2) and (D) of
IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 4, 7 read with Section 8,
11(iii) read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that
victim girl is a minor. On 25.04.2022 at about 10.00 a.m. at
Latha Hotel of Giliyaru Village, the accused No.2, who was
acquainted with the victim girl, when she was in 9th standard,
on the pretest of loving her, followed and contacted her
through mobile and took her in his scooter to Amrutheshwari
temple and from there at about 10.30 a.m. to Latha hotel,
Kota, Giliyaru Village and touched her hand and leg and had
committed sexual assault and harassment on her. It is also the
case of prosecution that on the same day at about 12.00 p.m.
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
HC-KAR
at a place called Harthattu bus stand of Giliyaru Village,
Brahamvara Taluk, the accused No.1 called her through phone
on the pretext that he wanted to talk with her and thereafter
induced her to come with him to go to Kundapura and
kidnapped her in his motorcycle to the old house belongs to
one Korta Rama situated at Kolkere, Basruru Village,
Kundapura Taluk and subjected her for forcible sexual
intercourse without her consent. On the basis of the complaint
filed by the victim girl, the women police have registered the
case in Crime No.34/2022 for the offences punishable for the
provisions of IPC and POCSO Act. The police after investigation
filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2.
4. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were released on bail and
they did not plead guilty and claimed for trial. Hence, the
prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 24 and marked
the documents Exs.P1 to 36 and M.Os.1 to 7 are also marked.
The accused was subjected to 313 statement and not led any
defence evidence.
5. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of
all the witnesses, particularly in paragraph No.31 in respect of
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
HC-KAR
proof of age of victim girl is concerned comes to the conclusion
that the same has not been proved. The Trial Court even had
taken note of Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rules 2007 which corresponds to
Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act. The said provision is applicable to POCSO Act also and
discussed in detail the judgment in Crl.A.No.1819/2023 in
YUVAPRAKASH VS. STATE, particularly in paragraph No.14,
considering Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act comes to the conclusion that age is not proved
and considered the admission on the part of P.W.1, wherein she
categorically admits that at the time of alleged incident, she
was aged about 18 years. The Trial Court also taken note of
age of the victim girl as spoken by P.W.2, wherein he says that
victim girl was 17 years at the time of the incident. The medical
report shows that the age of the victim girl is 17 years 6
months and there is no consistency in the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 and the documents produced by the prosecution.
Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that victim girl
was a minor on the alleged date of the incident.
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
HC-KAR
6. The Trial Court also with regard to the offence
under Sections 363 and 375 of IPC taken note of the evidence
and extracted the same in paragraph Nos.35, 36 and 39 i.e.,
oral evidence before the Court as well as before the learned
Magistrate while recording the statement under Section 164(5)
of Cr.P.C., wherein also she has not stated anything about
subjecting her for sexual act and also considered the medical
evidence. So also in respect of accused No.2 also, the Trial
Court discussed in paragraph No.48 and comes to the
conclusion that no material corroborates the case of
prosecution and acquitted the accused. The said judgment of
acquittal is challenged by the State before this Court by filing
this appeal.
7. The main contention of Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned
HCGP is that Trial Court committed an error in relying upon the
evidence of P.W.1 in coming to the conclusion that her evidence
is inconsistent. She would vehemently contend that P.W.1 has
been examined, wherein she has stated that her date of birth is
15.10.2004 and the date of incident is 25.04.2022. This shows
that the victim was not major at the time of the incident. But,
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
HC-KAR
the Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that victim
girl was major at the time of incident and hence, the provisions
of POCSO Act are not applicable. She would vehemently
contend that the Trial Court has lost sight of the evidence of
P.W.9, owner of Latha Hotel, who clearly says that accused had
come with the victim girl to his hotel and he has also stated
that he has given CCTV footage, wherein it is shown that
accused and the victim girl visited the hotel on that day. The
evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 and also the victim girl was not
considered in a proper perspective. The victim in her chief-
examination has stated that accused touched her hands and
legs. But, when she was asked about the incident in cross-
examination, she said that she could not inform the Court
about the sexual intercourse committed by the accused No.1
due to shyness and these are the factors which were not taken
note of by the Trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit
that Trial Court in detail discussed in paragraph No.48 that
P.W.1 has not spoken anything about accused No.2 and there is
no material against accused No.2.
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
HC-KAR
9. Learned counsel for accused No.1 also would submit
that Trial Court in detail taken note of evidence of P.W.1-victim
girl and nothing substantiates act of the accused.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-complainant,
who was authorized by HCLSC is absent and no representation
before the Court.
11. Having heard learned HCGP for the appellant-State
and also learned counsels appearing for respondent Nos.1 and
2, we have perused the material available on record,
particularly the reasonings given by the Trial Court as regards
proving the age of victim girl is concerned and except medical
report, wherein it says that victim was aged 17 years 6
months, no evidence is placed before the Court. But, in a case
where there is medical evidence, there must be an ossification
test and the same is not done. Apart from that, P.W.1 admits
that she is aged about 18 years and having perused the
evidence of P.W.1 in paragraph Nos.33 and 34, particularly
paragraph No.35, she categorically says that, except touching
her hand and leg, not made anything and thereafter, he left her
at Thekkatte which is also discussed in paragraph No.36. So
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
HC-KAR
also the Trial Court discussed with regard to 164(5) statement
in paragraph No.39, wherein also the victim girl has not stated
anything about subjecting her for forcible sexual act and the
evidence of P.W.2 is nothing but hearsay i.e., father of the
victim. When P.W.1 herself has not stated anything about
subjecting her for forcible sexual act, the evidence of P.W.2 will
not come to the aid of the prosecution and there is no medical
evidence before the Court.
12. When such being the case, question of invoking the
offence under Sections 366(A), 376(1) and 354(A)(1)(i)(2) and
(D) of IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 4, 7 read with
Section 8, 11(iii) read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012
does not arise in the absence of cogent evidence before the
Court. The evidence of P.W.1-victim girl is inconsistent and the
same is not trustworthy, wherein allegation is made against
both accused Nos.1 and 2. But, the evidence before the Court
is contrary to the same and even Section 164(5) statement is
also not in respect of subjecting her for sexual act. When all
these materials are considered by the Trial Court, we do not
find any ground to admit the appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4824-DB
HC-KAR
13. In view of the discussion made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
