[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Mallappa Parasappa Goudannavar Alias ... on 27 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4825-DB
CRL.A No. 100333 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100333 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY.
THE BAGALKOTE TOWN POLICE STATION,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)
AND:
1. MALLAPPA PARASAPPA GOUDANNAVAR @ KURUBAR,
VINAYAKA AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. PAINTER,
BV R/O. MUCHAKHANDI CROSS, BAGALKOTE,
TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101.
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2026.03.28
10:16:40 +0530 2. BABANNA BHEEMAPPA MADAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. MUCHAKHANDI CROSS, BAGALKOTE,
TQ. AND DIST.BAGALKOTE-587101.
3. SUVARNA BABANNA MADAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. MUCHAKHANDI CROSS, BAGALKOTE,
TQ. AND DIST.BAGALKOT-587101
- RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE ISSUED TO R1 AND R2 IS SERVED;
R3-DECEASED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4825-DB
CRL.A No. 100333 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A OF SC
AND ST(PA) ACT R/W SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL; CONVICT
AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. AND
SECTIONS 376, 376(1), 376(2) (1) (n), 376(3), 318 OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND UNDER SECTIONS 9,
10 AND 11 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
The appeal is listed for admission. Though notice of this
appeal is served upon respondents No.1 and 2 they remain
unrepresented. Respondent No.3 is reported as dead. Heard the
learned Additional S.P.P. for the appellant-State.
2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that accused
no. 1 had enticed the victim girl aged 14 years, saying that he
loves her and wants to marry her, and thereby repeatedly
committed penetrative sexual act on her for the past 2 years as
on 04.10.2021 in the house of the victim, when no other family
members were present in the house. As a result of penetrative
sexual assault committed by accused no. 1, the victim became
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4825-DB
HC-KAR
pregnant. When the victim had informed the said fact to the
accused no. 1, he had taken the victim to a temple and tied
Mangalasutra to the victim and married her. The accused no. 2
and 3, in spite of having knowledge that victim is a minor and
that she belongs to the scheduled caste, they had given consent
for the marriage.
3. On 17.10.2007, the victim had developed labour pain and
therefore, the accused no. 2 and 3 had taken the victim to 50
Bed Hospital Bagalkot. The victim gave birth to a female stillborn
child in the Hospital. The condition of the child was critical and
Doctors had advised the accused to take the child to the Hospital
which is having the ICU facility. The accused had intentionally
expressed their inability to take the child to the other Hospital,
saying that they have no financial capacity to do so. The child
died in the Hospital. In order to destroy the evidence of
commission of offence, the accused had taken the dead body of
the child and the same was cremated on the bank of
Gattaprabha river situated near Muchakandi cross.
4. On the above said facts, as per the report submitted by the
first informant, this case has been registered against the accused
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4825-DB
HC-KAR
no. 1 to 3 for the commission of offences of 376, 318 of IPC,
Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC
and ST (P.A.) Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of
Child Marriage Act, read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The suo moto case
was registered, investigation was conducted and filed the charge
sheet for the above offences. The accused were secured; they
did not plead guilty and claims the trial. Hence prosecution
mainly based upon the evidence of PW1 to PW21. Documents
Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P28 are marked and Statement of accused
u/S 313 CrPC was also recorded. The trial Judge having
considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the
conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the charges
levelled against the accused persons and acquitted the accused
persons. Being aggrieved, present appeal is filed by the State.
5. The counsel appearing for the State submits that the trial
Court committed an error in acquitting the accused persons. The
trial Judge fails to take note of the fact that though victim girl,
PW1 turned hostile, but she is a minor and her evidence ought to
have been taken note of; so also Exhibit P24 certificate issued by
the Government School which shows that she is a minor and she
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4825-DB
HC-KAR
belongs to Hindu Madar community. Ex.P.24 shows that date of
birth of victim is on 12.10.2007, which shows that this victim
was aged about 14 years. The counsel also would submit that
the statement was recorded Under Section 164(5) of CrPC and
complaint Exhibit P1 corroborates with the statement even
though victim turned hostile.
6. The counsel also would submit that PW2 who came to
know about the same given the information and at the instance
of PW2 case was registered. Dr. PW11 examined the victim and
opined that victim was below 18 years and she was 6 months
pregnant at the time of the examination and given the report in
terms of Exhibit P11. The other Doctor PW10 stated that she
examined the victim, the victim has given birth to a child and the
child died as the parents refused to take the child for higher
treatment. So also the evidence of the Doctor-PW15 and
evidence of the Bagalakot Taluka Executive Magistrate which
discloses that on 21.10.2021 as per request of the Investigation
Officer, he was very much present, and collected the bones for
DNA test. The counsel also would submit that DNA test is
'positive' that accused no. 1 is the biological father of the child.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4825-DB
HC-KAR
PW7 is the official witness. PW8 and 9 have also deposed before
the Court. Hence the trial Court committed an error.
7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the State and also
on perusal of the material, the specific case of the prosecution is
that accused no. 1 subjected her for sexual act, thereafter he
married her and accused no. 2 and 3 who are the parents of the
victim girl also given the consent. But none of these witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution. Records also reveal
that suo moto case was registered on the information of PW2.
Though PW7 deposes before the court, all are official witnesses.
No doubt FSL Report Exhibit P26 discloses that accused no. 1 is
the biological father. But when the victim and other witnesses
have turned hostile and not supported the case of the
prosecution, based on the FSL report the accused cannot be
convicted and the same is not the substantive piece of evidence
and the same requires corroboration so also there is no any such
corroboration before the Court. When such being the case, trial
judge taking into note of both oral and documentary evidence
available on record in detail discussed the same in paragraph No.
33 regarding the evidence of victim plays a prominent role. It is
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4825-DB
HC-KAR
also not substantiated that the contents of the complaint and
PW7 who is the CDPO, the evidence only says that victim has
come to the Anganvadi Kendra for the purpose of getting 'Thayi
Card' as she is pregnant. The trial Court also comes to the
conclusion that evidence of PW7 is only a hearsay witness and so
also PW8 and PW9 is also the staff of CDPO who had visited the
house of victim and brought her to the District Hospital. The trial
Judge in paragraph Nos.38 and 39 comes to the conclusion that
in order to prove the sexual act and as a result she became
pregnant and also accused no. 2 and 3 involved in the marriage
of the victim, who is a minor also not substantiated the said by
placing any material on record. When such reasoning is given by
the trial Court we do not find any ground to admit the appeal
and hence prosecution has not made out any ground to admit
the appeal to consider the matter afresh for re-appreciation
when there are no ground is made out.
8. The trial Court also taken note of DNA Test Exhibit P26 to
come to the conclusion that report cannot be accepted and the
same is doubtful since nothing is discussed with regard to the
seizure of the bones of the baby from the spot, has also not
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4825-DB
HC-KAR
mentioned the details of the bones which were collected at the
spot. Even while giving the report also nothing is mentioned in
the Exhibit P26 that bones are subjected to test and hence not
accepted the same. The prosecution also relies upon the
evidence of PW19 to prove the date of birth. But in the cross-
examination, PW19 says that he is not aware on what basis the
date of birth of the victim girl was entered. Even the prosecution
has not proved the date of birth of the victim. Apart from that
when the victim and other witnesses have not supported so also
the Doctor PW11 says that the dental age of the victim was
below 18 years.
9. Having considered all these materials and record we hold
that this is not a case for admitting the appeal. Hence the
appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
BVV
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12
