MR.SHARATH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2021 (C)



BETWEEN:

MR.SHARATH,
S/O LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCCUPATION - COOLIE,
R/O SERVANT QUARTERS,
BETTADAMALALI,
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK.

PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF
HOSAGANGOORU VILLAGE,
KALLATTIPURA POST,
LINGADAHALLI HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN - 577 228.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.P., ADVOCATE)








Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

AND:

1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MALLANDUR POLICE,
CHICKMAGALUR TALUK,
THROUGH THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. SMT. PREMA,
W/O CHAKRAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT COOLI LINE OF SATHISH GOWDA,
BETTADAMALALI VILLAGE,
AVATHI HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 28.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II A/W
SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ASHWIN JOYSLON KULTINHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30.11.2020
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-1, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
SPL.C.(POCSO).NO.4/2019 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
376(3),376(2)(N),506 OF IPC AND SEC.5(J)(ii),5(L) R/W 6 OF
POCSO ACT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021



ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)


The accused has preferred this appeal under
Section 374 (2) of Cr.PC, feeling aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2020
passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
FTSC-1, Chikmaglur in Special Case (POCSO)
No.4/2019.
2. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the
accused for the offences under Section 376 (2) (n),
376 (3), 506 of IPC and Section 5 (j)(ii), 5(l) read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/- for the offences punishable under Section
376(3), 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii), 5(l) read
with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and to undergo SI for

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


1 year for the offence punishable under Section 506 of
IPC.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, 7-8
months prior to the date of complaint and on several
occasions thereafter, when the minor victim girl aged
under 16 years, was alone in her house situated in the
coolie lane of Shanmukha Estate situated at
Bettadamalali, Chikmaglur Taluk, the accused took her
to the dilapidated house and repeatedly committed
rape and threatened her with dire consequences, if
she disclosed the matter to her family members.
Further, on account of the said act committed by the
accused, the victim became pregnant, hence, the
accused committed the charged offences.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


4. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant, learned SPP-II for the State and perused
the evidence and material on record.
5. The law was set into motion by the mother of
the victim, examined as PW1. In Exhibit P1-
complaint, she has averred that her second daughter
that is the victim was aged about 15 years and she
was studying in 8th Standard at GGJC High School in
Ramanahalli and staying in a hostel. Since 1 year, she
had left the school and stayed in the house. She
noticed some physical changes in her daughter and on
enquiry, her daughter revealed that she was 8 months
pregnant and the accused is responsible for her
pregnancy. Further stated that about 9 months prior,
he took her to the dilapidated house of one Deve
Gowda, situated in the coolie lane and with a promise
of marriage and against her consent, committed rape

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


on her and threatened her that if the matter was
disclosed to others, he will kill her and her mother. It
is further stated that in the same month, the accused
committed rape on her on several occasions.
6. On receiving the complaint-Ex.P1, PW11-PSI
registered a case against the accused. The
investigation was handed over to the Police Inspector-
PW12. The victim girl was subjected to medical
examination. Her statement was also recorded under
Section 164 of CrPC. The victim delivered a baby on
13.02.2019. The blood samples of the baby and
the accused were collected and sent for DNA
examination. As per the DNA report-Ex.P53, the
accused was found to be the biological father of the
baby.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


7. PW1 has corroborated the complaint
averments. Her evidence further reveals that before
lodging the complaint, she took the victim to the
Government Hospital, Aldur, wherein, after performing
a pregnancy test, they were informed that the victim
was pregnant. PW1 has also deposed about her
daughter revealing the rape committed by the accused
and the threat posed by him.
8. The victim girl is examined as PW2. She has
stated that in-spite of her resistance, the accused
committed rape on her and also threatened her by
saying that if she did not accompany him, he will
commit the murder of her mother. It is stated that the
accused had committed rape on her 3 to 4 times.
9. After registration of the case, the victim
showed the spot where the incident took place. Both

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


PW1 and PW2 have deposed that the police have
conducted a mahazar as per Ex.P2. PW4 is a panch
witness to Ex.P2. He has deposed regarding the police
conducting the spot mahazar and drawing a sketch as
per Exs.P11 and P12.
10. The prosecution has got examined PW7, the
Staff Nurse working at Government Primary Health
Center, Aldur. She has deposed that the victim had
come to the hospital along with her mother on
23.11.2018 and on examination, she confirmed the
pregnancy of the victim. Ex.P28 is the OPD Register
marked through the said witness.
11. PW6 is the doctor who examined the victim
on 25.11.2018. On examination, she found that the
victim was 27 weeks pregnant. The report submitted
by PW6 is marked as Ex.P8, the scanning reports

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


(photocopy) are marked as Exs.P25 and P26. The
prosecution has also got examined PW13 and PW14 to
establish the DNA report. The report confirms that the
accused was the biological father of the baby born to
the victim girl. PW13, working as a Senior Specialist at
District Hospital Chikmaglur has deposed that on
08.04.2019, he collected the blood samples from the
victim, accused and also the baby and sent it to the
FSL for DNA test. On 28.11.2019, he received the DNA
test report-Ex.P53, as per which the accused was the
biological father of the baby. PW14, the Scientific
Officer, who conducted the DNA examination has
deposed that he received the sealed articles on
09.04.2019 which contained the 3 blood samples and
he subjected the same for DNA examination and
issued the report-Ex.P53.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


12. We have perused the Ex.P53-DNA report.
PW14 has opined that the DNA profile of female baby
of victim, sample blood sent in Item No.2, is
consistent with having come from the offspring of
victim and the accused sample blood sent in Item
Nos.1 and 3 respectively and therefore, 1) Victim
sample blood sent in Item No.1 is included from being
the biological mother and source of DNA of female
baby of victim, sample blood sent in item No.2.
2) Accused sample blood sent in item No.3 is included
from being the biological father and source of DNA of
female baby of victim, sample blood sent in Item
No.2.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the chain of custody of samples from
the point of its collection till it reached the lab has not
been stated and proved. The said argument is not

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


accepted because, we have seen from the evidence of
PW13 that the blood samples were collected on
08.04.2019 and on the very next day i.e. on
09.04.2019, PW14, the Scientific Officer has received
the sealed articles containing the blood samples. The
DNA report-Ex.P53 is therefore reliable to hold that
the accused was the biological father of the baby born
to the victim.
14. To attract the ingredients of the offences
under the POCSO Act, the burden is on the
prosecution to establish that the victim was a minor
below 18 years as on the date of incident. Further, in
this case, the prosecution has framed a charge against
the accused under Section 376 (3) of IPC. In order to
attract the said provision, the prosecution has to
prove that the victim was aged below 16 years.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


15. To prove the age, the prosecution is relying
on the evidence of PW5, the Head Master of the
Government Higher Primary School, where the victim
studied. He has issued the study certificate-Ex.P17. As
per the said document, the victim girl studied in the
said school from I standard to VII standard and her
date of birth was 18.04.2003. If the same is taken
into consideration, the victim was aged less than 15
years at the time of incident.
16. In P. Yuvaprakash V/s State of T.N. ,
reported in 2024 (17) SCC 684 , the Apex Court held
at para 16 as under:
"16- "Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates
that the date of birth certificate from the school or
matriculation or equivalent certificate by the
examination board concerned has to be firstly
preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate
issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or
Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of
these such documents the age to be determined
through "an ossification test" or "any other latest
medical age determination test" conducted on the

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


orders of the authority concerned i.e. Committee or
Board or Court."

17. Admittedly, except the said study
certificate, there is no other document produced by
the prosecution in proof of victim's age. Hence, we
have to examine as to whether the Study Certificate-
EX.P17, issued by PW.5, the Head Master, is sufficient
to prove that the victim was under 18 years or under
16 years of age.
18. The testimony of PW5 goes to show that he
received a requisition from the I.O as per Ex.P16 to
issue the Age Confirmation Certificate pertaining to
the victim and therefore, on the basis of the school
admission register, he issued the Study Certificate-
Ex.P17. The school admission register, on the basis of
which PW5 issued the study certificate, has not been
produced. In the cross-examination, he has admitted
that the victim's parents are illiterate and he was not

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


the Head Master when the victim was admitted to the
school. Further, admitted that sometimes they would
make entry in the register as per the say of the
parents and sometimes on the basis of birth
certificate. As already stated, except the study
certificate-Ex.P17, the prosecution has not placed any
other material in proof of victim's date of birth or her
age. In the case on hand, in our considered view, only
on the basis of Ex.P17-the certificate issued by the
Head Master-PW.5, the prosecution has not proved
that the victim was a minor as on the date of
commission of the offence.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the evidence of the victim girl clearly
reveals that she was a consenting party, as she has
stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with
her on several occasions. We would have accepted the

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


said contention, if the victim had not stated in her
evidence that the accused had extended life threat to
her and her mother. A careful perusal of the evidence
of the victim goes to show that the consent, if any,
given by her was not a consent in the eye of law. Even
in the complaint-Ex.P1, it is stated that the accused
had caused life threat to the victim stating that he
would kill her and her mother, if the matter was
disclosed to others. Nothing worthwhile has been
elicited in the cross-examination of the victim to
disbelieve the said evidence.
20. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the
view that the prosecution has failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence under Section 376(3) or under
Section 5(j)(ii) and 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO
Act. However, the judgment of conviction and

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences
punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC is
justified. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part .
ii) The judgment of conviction and order
on sentence dated 30.11.2020 passed
by the Court of Additional District and
Sessions Judge, FTSC-I at Chikmaglur,
convicting and sentencing the accused
for the offences punishable under
Section 376(3) of IPC and Section
5(j)(ii) and 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act,
is set aside.
iii) The judgment of conviction passed
against the accused / appellant for the
offences punishable under Section
376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC are
confirmed.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


iv) For the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, the accused is
sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and to pay
fine of Rs.40,000/-. In default of
payment of fine, to undergo SI for one
year.
v) The sentence of S.I. for 1 year imposed
for the offence punishable under
Section 506 of IPC is confirmed.
vi) Both the sentences shall run
concurrently.
vii) The accused is entitled to the benefit
of set-off.
viii) If the fine amount is deposited, the
same shall be paid to the victim, as
compensation.
ix) The rest of the order passed by the
trial Court regarding payment of
compensation to the victim by the

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57113-DB
CRL.A No. 489 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010148842021


District Legal Services Authority,
Chikmaglur, left undisturbed.

Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE


MKM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10