[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Tippanna Kavali vs The State And Anr on 17 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200129 OF 2024
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
TIPPANNA KAVALI
S/O BHIMAPPA KAVALI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O KYATNAL VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585319.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRIRAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WADGERA POLICE STATION,
YADGIRI DISTRICT,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA NOW REPRESENTED BY
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
ADDL. S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
KARNATAKA
2. BALAPPA
S/O CHANDRAMAPPA CHIGANOOR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O KYATNAL VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585319.
(FATHER OF THE VICTIM)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
R-2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN SP C (POCSO) 84/2020 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI IN
SPL C (POCSO) 84/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.
366, 376(2)(N), 376(3) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND U/S.
4(2), 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.
80/2020 OF WADAGERA POLICE STATION (YADGIRI DISTRICT)
AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 29.04.2024 IMPOSED UPON THE
APPELLANT / ACCUSED NO.1 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The accused/appellant has filed this appeal against
the judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2024 and order on
sentence dated 02.05.2024 passed in Special Case
(POCSO) No.84/2020 by the District and Sessions Judge,
Yadgiri (for short "the trial Court").
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank and
status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
Wadagera Police submitted the chargesheet against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'the IPC') and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the
POCSO Act').
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused
was in love with the daughter of CW.1, who was a minor
and by saying that he will marry his daughter, he had
sexual intercourse with her forcibly. On 09.07.2020 at
about 11.30 p.m., the accused abducted the victim/CW.2
from Kyatnal village and went to Bengaluruand stayed in a
rented house belongs to CW.6 situated at Chowdeshwari
layout, Kereguddadahalli of Bengaluru North and had
sexual intercourse with her. Thus, the accused has
committed the aforesaid offences.
5. After filing the chargesheet, the case was
registered against the accused in Special Case (POCSO)
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
No.84/2020. The accused was produced before the Court
and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, he was
released on bail on 09.11.2023.
6. Upon hearing on charges, the Trial Court framed
the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
The same was read over and explained to the accused.
The accused, having understood the same, pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, in all,
the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses as, PW.1 to
PW.18, twenty-nine documents were marked as Exhibit
P.1 to Exhibit P.29 and no material objects were marked.
On closure of evidence on the prosecution side, the
statement of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') was recorded. The
accused has denied the incriminating circumstances. He
did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of
the IPC and Sections4(2) and 6 of the POCSO and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years
and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for two months for the offence
punishable under Section 366 of the IPC. Further, the
accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the
offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.
Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for twenty years and to pay fine of
Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months for the offence punishable underSection
376(3) of the IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to
pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable
under Sections4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
respondent No.1/State.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to
law, facts and evidence on record. The reasons assigned
by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned
judgment is erroneous and as such he has slipped into an
error and passed the impugned judgment of conviction
and order on sentence, resulting in substantial miscarriage
of justice. The victim has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has turned hostile. As per the complaint,
the victim was abducted on 09.07.2020 by the appellant
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
and the complaint came to be lodged on 15.07.2020. The
delay in lodging the complaint is not at all explained by the
prosecution. PW.3, the mother of the victim has turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court has
erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of the
evidence of PW.5, without there being any corroborative
material on record. The same has resulted in a grave
miscarriage of justice. It is the case of the prosecution that
the appellant had taken the victim to the house of PW.6 at
Bengaluru and committed forcible sexual intercourse on
her. However, it is worth to note that PW.6 has turned
hostile to the prosecution case. Under such circumstances,
the very allegation of the prosecution that the appellant
had abducted the victim and had forcible sexual
intercourse with her, stands falsified. This aspect of the
matter is not considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court
has not appreciated the evidence on record in accordance
with law and facts and prays to allow this appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
12. As against this, the learned High Court
Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, would
submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence
and sought for dismissal of this appeal.
13. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that the victim was child as
defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act as
on the date of commission of offence?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by the
Trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the
evidence on record?
(iii) What order?
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
Point No.1:
14. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that at the
time of commission of offence, the age of the victim was
17 years. To substantiate the same, the prosecution has
produced Exhibit P.21-letter addressed by the
Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, Kyatnal
to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadagera Police Station, in
which it is stated that the date of birth of the victim is
15.06.2003. The Headmaster, Sharanappa Sabanna Bagali
examined as PW.14. He has deposed in his evidence that
on 15.07.2020, Wadagera Police requested him to issue
birth certificate of the victim and on 04.08.2020, he has
examined the school documents. On the basis of school
documents, he has issued this letter Exhibit P.21 stating
that the date of birth of the victim is 15.06.2003.
15. In Ex.P.18, the Medico-legal Examination Report
of Sexual Violence, in which the age of the victim is shown
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
as 17 years. The PW.13, Dr. Aasha Anwar has not deposed
in her evidence as to the age of the victim.
16. A perusal of the materials placed before this
Court, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not
produced the birth certificate or matriculation certificate or
ossification certificate as per the Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for
short, 'the JJ Act'), which are required to prove the age of
the victim. The Investigating Officer has not whispered
anything as to the compliance of Section 34 of POCSO Act.
The Medical Officer, PW.13 has not stated anything as to
the compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 164A of
the Cr.P.C. Exhibit P.21 is not an admission register
extract. This is only a correspondence, i.e. letter
addressed by the Headmaster to the Sub-Inspector of
Police. This document cannot be considered as a certified
copy of the admission register extract. PW.14 has not
whispered anything as to on what basis the concerned
school authorities have entered the date of birth of the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
victim as 15.06.2003. In the absence of aforesaid material
piece of evidence, it is not safe to come to the conclusion
that the date of birth of the victim is 15.06.2023 as shown
in Exhibit P.21. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any
credible and legal evidence to prove the age of the victim.
Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the age of
the victim as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act
beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point
No.1 in the Negative.
Point No.2:
17. With regard to the offences punishable under
Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act are concerned,
when the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim
was "child" as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO
Act, the question of committing the offences under the
penal provisions of the POCSO Act does not arise.
18. With regard to the offences punishable under
Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC are
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
concerned, the prosecution has examined PW.1 victim.
She has specifically stated in her evidence that she does
not know the accused and she has not supported the case
of the prosecution. Even in her cross-examination made by
the learned Special Public Prosecutor after treating her as
hostile witness, she has categorically denied the
suggestions made by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor. The victim has deposed that she has not given
any statement under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C.
However, the prosecution has produced the said
statement, which is marked as Exhibit P.6. Even in the
statement recorded under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C.,
the victim has not whispered anything as to the accusation
made against the accused.
19. PW.2-father of the victim has deposed that about
2½ years back, the accused took PW.1/victim to
Bengaluru. Hence, he lodged a complaint to the police
against the appellant as per Exhibit P.9 and the police
have conducted the Mahazar as per Exhibit P.10. After one
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
week from the date of filing the complaint, the police have
traced her daughter. Except this, he has not deposed
anything against the accused.
20. PW.3-mother of the victim, was completely
hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even in her cross-
examination conducted by the Special Public Prosecutor,
she has categorically denied the statements said to have
been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section
161 of Cr.P.C., which are marked as Exhibits P11 and P12.
21. PW.4-grandmother of the victim, is a hearsay
witness.
22. PW.5-Hanumanthraya Gowda, has deposed in his
evidence that about two and a half years ago, at around
12:30 a.m., when he had gone to answer nature's call, the
accused kidnapped the victim, and thereafter, her parents
lodged a complaint with the police. Subsequently, he came
to know that the accused had committed rape on the
victim.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
23. PW.6--Abdul Rahim, has not supported the case
of the prosecution.
24. PW.7--Khaja Husain, PW.8--Basuraj Bagappa,
PW.9--Ranganna Saibanna, PW.10--Devanna Kamanna,
PW.11--Ningappa Heikkalappa, and PW.12--Siddhappa
Anandappa have not supported the case of the
prosecution. All these witnesses have completely turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution.
25. PW.13-Dr. Asha Anwar, has deposed in her
evidence regarding the examination of the victim and the
issuance of certificate Exhibit P18.
26. PW.14-Sharanappa Sabanna Bagli, the
Headmaster, has deposed regarding the issuance of
certificate Exhibit P21.
27. PW.15--Sidhraj Shivappa Baluji, PW.16--
Raghuvendra Pratap Reddy, PW.17--Sharana Gauda
Malakindrayan Yamananavar, and PW.18--Soumshekara
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
Shanmukappa, being police officials, have deposed
regarding their respective investigation.
28. All the material witnesses, including the victim
and the parents of the victim, have not supported the case
of the prosecution. There is absolutely no evidence to
convict the accused for the alleged commission of
offences. Nevertheless, the trial Court has convicted the
accused without any evidence, which is not sustainable in
law. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I
answer Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
Point No.3:
29. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
HC-KAR
ii. The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed by the District and Sessions
Judge, Yadgir, in Criminal Special Case No.
84/2020, dated 29.04.2024, is hereby set
aside.
iii. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the
offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), and
376(3) of the IPC and Section 4(2) and 6 of the
POCSO Act, 2012.
iv. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine
amount if any deposited, to the accused.
v. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment along with the Trial Court Records
(TCR) to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
RSP/TIN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53
CT: SI
