MANNAPPA S/O NINGAPPA IJERI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200081 OF 2016

(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))


BETWEEN:

MANAPPA S/O NINGAPPA IJERI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. KANAMESHWAR, TQ. JEVARAGI, DIST.
KALABURAGI.

…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THROUGH THE D.S.P. INDI,
(SINDAGI POLICE STATION),
NOW REP. ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING.

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADDL.SPP)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE, DATED 26.04.2016,
PASSED IN SPECIAL (POSCO) CASE NO. 48/2014 BY THE







Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


SPECIAL JUDGE AND II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYPUR, BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST HIM,
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 355, 324,
376(2) OF IPC R/W SECTION 5 (L) 6 OF (POSCO) ACT AND
SECTION 3(1)(XI) & 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (PA).

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The appellant has filed this criminal appeal aggrieved
by the judgment and order of sentence dated
26.04.2016 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No.48 of
2014 by the learned Special Judge and II Additional
Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (for short, ‘ the Trial
Court ’).

2. Brief facts leading raise to filing of this appeal are as
follows:

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant
belongs to Kuruba community and was engaged in

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


picking up coolie work from Murudi Village to
Kanameshwar Village in a Tumtum vehicle, thereby
had an acquaintance with the people of Murudi
Village, more particularly with CW1-
Victim/complainant, her sister-CW6 and their
mother-CW7 who belong to Harijan community. It is
alleged that on 11.10.2014, victim girl along with her
sister-CW6, had gone for collection of fuel wood
towards Kanameshwar road and after collecting the
fuel wood, while they were returning home at about
05:30 p.m., the appellant came in a Tumtum vehicle
of Bajaj Company near to CW1 and CW6, knowing
fully well that the victim is a minor aged about 16
years and belongs to scheduled caste, forcibly took
her in a Tumtum vehicle and kidnapped her with the
intention to sexually assault her, assaulted her with
chappal, dragged her here and there. CW6 tried to
rescue the victim from being kidnapped. However,
the appellant assaulted CW6 by pushing her and

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


thereafter, took the complainant in a Tumtum vehicle
to the land of one Mallappa Saibanna Bovi bearing
Survey No.15 situated within the limits of his village
- Kanameshwar and in the night, committed a
forcible rape on her thrice and on the next day
morning i.e., on 12.10.2014 brought the victim girl
to Murudi village at 07:30 a.m., in a pickup van
bearing Registration No.KA-32/C-1600 and Chassis
No.MB1AA22E7DRR57323 to Murudi village. It is the
further case of the prosecution that CW6 saw him
dropping her sister/victim girl; she tried to
apprehend him and at that time, the appellant
assaulted her on her back and hands with a stick
causing simple injury to CW6.

4. CW1/complainant lodged a complaint against the
appellant before Sindagi Police Station, who
registered a Case in Crime No.260 of 2014 for
offences punishable under Sections 366A, 354, 355,
324, 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


(“ IPC ”) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act (“ POSCO Act ”)
and Section 3(1)(xi), (xii) and 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“ Atrocities Act ”)

5. The Police after investigation filed a charge-sheet.
The Trial Court has taken the cognizance of the
offences on 06.12.2014. The Trial Court furnished a
copy of the charge-sheet to the appellant in
compliance with Section 207 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, (“ CrPC ”).

6. The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties framed the charges and the charges were
read over and explained to the appellant, the
appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution, to bring home the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt examined 17
witnesses as PW1 to PW17 and got marked 32

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


documents as Exhibits P1 to P32 besides producing
MOs-1 to 5.

8. The Trial Court recorded the statement of the
accused under Section 313 of CrPC in respect of
incriminating material existing in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses; the appellant denied those
incriminating material as false but did not choose to
lead any defence evidence.

9. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, framed the following points for
consideration:
(i) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that. on
11.10.2014 at about 5:30 p.m.
when victim girl ‘B’ had gone to
collect fuel wood along with her
sister, accused came in a Tum Tum
vehicle and forcibly kidnapped the
minor girl ‘B’, aged about 16 years,
from the road leading to
Kanameshwar village and thereby

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


committed an offence punishable
U/sec.366 of IPC?

(ii) Whether prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, on
the above said date, time and
place, accused assaulted the victim
girl ‘B’ with Chappal and caused
simple injury to her and thereby
committed an offence punishable
U/sec.355 of IPC?

(iii) Whether prosecution further
proves beyond reasonable doubt
that, on the above said date time
and place, accused assaulted with
stick on the back and hands of CW-
6 Renuka when she tried to save
the victim girl ‘B’ and caused simple
injuries to CW-6 Renuka and
thereby committed an offence
punishable U/sec.324 of IPC?

(iv) Whether prosecution further
proves beyond reasonable doubt
that on the above said date time
and place, accused having
kidnapped the said victim girl ‘B’,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


aged about 16 years took her in
Tum Tum vehicle to his land
situated within the vicinity of
Kanameshwar village knowing fully
well that she is a minor girl belongs
to Scheduled Caste, committed
rape on her for number of times
and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/secs.376(2) of IPC
r/w Sec 5(L) and 6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012?

(v) Whether prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, on
the above said date, time and
place, taking undue advantage of
the victim girl ‘B’ being Scheduled
Caste, in order to humiliate her and
to dishonour and outrage her
modesty, kidnapped her and
committed rape on her, thereby
committed offences punishable
U/sec.3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Caste,
1989?

(vi) Whether prosecution further
proves beyond reasonable doubt

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


that on the above said date time
and place, accused knowing fully
well that the victim girl ‘B’ belongs
Scheduled Caste committed
offences U/sec.366 and
U/sec.376(2) of IPC r/w Sec.5(L) of
Protection of children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, which are
punishable with imprisonment for
more than ten (10) years taking
advantage of the fact that, she
belongs to Scheduled caste,
thereby committed an offence
punishable U/sec.3(2)(v) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989?


(vii) What order?”

10. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on
record, answered Point Nos.1 to 6 in the affirmative
and point No.7 - as per the final order. The appellant
was convicted and passed an order of sentence,
whereby the appellant is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of 5 years for the offence

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


punishable under Section 366 of IPC and to pay a
Rs.
fine of 10,000/-. In default of the payment of fine,
he was further sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was
further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section
5(l) of POCSO Act and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

11. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order
of sentence dated 26.04.2016 passed in Special
(POCSO) Case No.48 of 2014 by the learned Special
Judge and II Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur,
filed this appeal under Section 374 of CrPC.

12. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for the respondent – State.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016



13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
victim girl has lodged a complaint as per Exhibit P1.
He submits that the complainant did not know the
contents of Exhibit P1 and further he submits that
the victim girl, during course of her examination-in-
chief, has stated that the appellant has not done
anything to her and she has not lodged a complaint
against him. He submits that the victim girl has
admitted having given a statement before the
learned Magistrate, but according to her, she gave a
statement as per the say of the villagers of the
accused and further submits that PW1 / complainant
has not stated that she was not forcibly taken to the
police station and he further submits that the
complainant was treated hostile. He also submits
that though PW5 has sustained some injuries, the
doctor has stated that the said injuries can be found
on the body because of some other reasons and he
also submits that PW5 has denied the case of the

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


prosecution and she has not explained the injuries
suffered by her. He submits that the burden is on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. He submits that the prosecution
has failed to prove that the seminal stain found on
Item No.5A is of the appellant. The Trial Court based
on this FSL Report has come to a wrong conclusion
that the appellant has committed a rape on the
victim girl. He also submits that PW2 and PW3, who
are the panchas to Exhibits P8 to P10, have turned
hostile. He submits that the alleged incident took
place in the open place near the village but the
Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements
of any public who were present at the time of alleged
incident. Hence, the Trial Court has committed an
error in passing judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.

14. He further submits that the appellant has married
the victim and they are having two children and in

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


order to establish that the victim has married the
appellant, the appellant has produced his children’s
Birth Certificate. Out of their wedlock, the victim girl
begotten two children and produced the birth
certificate of the children, wherein the mother’s
name depicts victim girl’s name and father's name is
shown as Manappa Ijeri i.e., appellant herein; the
first son was born on 11.12.2018 and second son
was born on 09.01.2021 and he submits that both
are residing together and are leading a happy
married life. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the appeal.

15. Per contra, learned Additional SPP supported the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence. He submits that the medical records
support the case of the prosecution and he also
submits that the prosecution examined PW5 i.e., the
sister of the victim and she is also an injured
witness. She has deposed that the appellant had

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


assaulted her and she has sustained the injuries and
he submits that the prosecution has produced the
Wound Certificate marked as Exhibit P29. He submits
that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt, as such, the Trial Court has rightly
appreciated the entire evidence on record and rightly
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence. Hence, prays to dismiss the
appeal.

16. We have perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

17. The points that would arise for our consideration are:
“(i) Whether the appellant proves
that the Trial Court has
committed an error in passing
the impugned judgment
without properly appreciating
the entire evidence on record?
(ii) What order?”

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016



18. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined
the complainant as PW1. She has deposed that she
belongs to Scheduled Caste and she does not know
the accused and his caste; she knows
CW2/Revanasidda, CW3/BashaSab; CW6/Renuka is
her elder sister; CW7/Sabavvaa is her mother;
CW8/Yallappa and CW9/Shivaraj are her neighbours.
She does not know CW10/Shivu, CW11/Pundalik and
CW12/Devappa. She has stated that accused has not
done anything to her and she has not lodged any
complaint against him. The complaint was confronted
to PW1. She admits her signature on it; the
complaint was marked as Exhibit P1 and her
signatures are marked as Exhibits P1(a) and P1(b)
and the contents of the complaint was read over and
she denied the contents of Exhibit P1; Her evidence
was recorded by the learned Magistrate under
Section 164 of CrPC and the said statement is
marked as Exhibit P2 and signature of PW1 is

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


marked as Exhibit P2(a) and she has stated that the
statement made before the Magistrate was as per
the say of the villagers of the accused and she has
deposed that no such incident has taken place as
stated in Exhibit P2.

19. PW1 was treated as hostile by the learned Public
Prosecutor after obtaining permission from the Trial
Court. During the course of cross-examination by the
learned Public Prosecutor, she has denied the entire
case of the prosecution and further, PW1 was
recalled on 03.12.2015 and cross-examined by the
learned Public Prosecutor.

20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
cross-examined PW1 and it is elicited that she does
not know, for what reason the Police have taken the
photographs at Exhibits P5 and P6; however, witness
volunteers that the police has asked her to stand in
front of the vehicle and took the photographs and

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


she does not know in which village the accused’s
land is situated and she admits that she has not
shown the land of the accused, but Police came and
took her to the land of accused and took the
photographs in the said land and Police threatened
her to stretch her hand and at that time, the
photograph was taken and she has also denied that
she has given a statement before CW23 and the said
statement was marked as Exhibit P32.

21. PW2 and PW3 are the panchas to Exhibits P8 to P10
and they turned hostile.

22. One Sanjeev Jabanur was examined as PW4, who is
a witness to the seizure mahazar of Tumtum auto, as
per Exhibit P11 and photograph Exhibit P7. The said
witness is treated as hostile.

23. The sister of the victim/ Renuka Harijan is examined
as PW5. She has deposed that the complainant i.e.,
PW1 is her sister. She is 5 to 6 years younger to PW5

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


and she was given in marriage about 8 years back
and residing in her husband's house and she does
not know anything about the case and the accused
has not assaulted her at any time. She has also
deposed that the accused has not kidnapped her
sister i.e., the victim. She has also deposed that she
has not complained her regarding any sexual assault
by the accused on her and that the Police have not
enquired about any such incident.

24. The learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to
treat this witness as hostile and the Trial Court
granted permission to treat the witness as hostile.
She has denied the entire suggestion made by the
learned Public Prosecutor in her cross-examination.
PW-5 has not supported the case of the prosecution.

25. The mother of the victim/Sabawwa Harijan was
examined as PW6. In her examination-in-chief, she
has stated that the accused has not done anything to

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


her daughter and PW5 has not complained her
against the accused about any incident and she has
not stated anything before her about the accused
and the police have not recorded any statement. The
said witness was treated as hostile and she has
denied the entire suggestions made by the learned
Public Prosecutor.

26. The prosecution examined one Yallappa Harijan as
PW7, who is a distant relative of PW6 i.e., the
mother of the victim girl and, in the examination-in-
chief, he has stated that he does not know anything
about the case and the Police have not enquired him
about the case.

27. The said witness was treated as hostile. He has
denied the entire suggestions made by the learned
Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination.

28. The prosecution examined one Shivaraj Harijan as
PW8. Even he has deposed in the examination-in-

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


chief that he does not know the accused present
before the Court and he has not seen any incident of
kidnapping of victim and police have not enquired
him about the case.

29. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned
Public Prosecutor and during the cross-examination,
he has denied the suggestions made by the learned
Public Prosecutor.

30. The prosecution examined Shivanand Manageri as
PW9 and during the examination, he has deposed
that he does not know the complainant and the
mother of the complainant. He knows the accused
present before the Court. He does not know anything
about the case. The complaint was confronted to this
witness i.e., Exhibit P1 and his signature is marked
as Exhibit P1(c) and he has deposed that he has
written the complaint as dictated by the police in
Sindagi Police Station. He has not seen any person

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


from Murudi Village; on that day in the police station,
when he wrote the complaint, the police have not
recorded any statement except himself and no others
have signed this complaint in his presence and the
said witness was treated as hostile and during the
cross-examination, he has denied the suggestions
made by the learned Public Prosecutor.

31. The prosecution examined Dr.Siddagondappa Havinal
as PW10. He has deposed that he was working as a
Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sindagi since 5
years. On 14.10.2014, he received a requisition from
Sindagi Police Station at 01:30 p.m. to examine the
accused by name Manappa. He has examined the
accused and issued a final report and the said final
report is marked as Exhibit P20 and his signature is
marked as Exhibit P20(a).

32. The prosecution examined Dr.Channamma Katti as
PW11. She has deposed that she was working as a

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


Senior Specialist in District Hospital, Vijayapur since
the year 2009. On 13.10.2014 at 12:30 p.m., the
victim girl was brought to the hospital by Women
Police Constable No.1456 with a history of alleged
kidnap and rape. The history was given by the victim
girl herself and she has produced the copy of MLC
register marked as Exhibit P22. The relevant entries
in page Nos.130 and 131 are marked as Exhibit
P22(a) and 22(b) respectively and the xerox copies
of page Nos.130 and 131 are marked as Exhibit
P22(c) and 22(d) respectively and she has given a
final opinion and the said final opinion is marked as
Exhibit P23 and her signature is marked as Exhibit
P23(a) and she has collected MO Nos.4 and 5 on that
day.

33. During cross-examination, she admits that the
external injuries on the web space and back can be
caused due to fall on hard surface or working in the
field and it is denied that MO Nos.4 and 5 are not the

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


clothes of the victim girl and she has not collected
those clothes during her examination.

34. The prosecution examined the Assistant Engineer
PWD as PW12, who has prepared the sketch map of
the scene of occurrence on 18.10.2014 and the said
sketch map is marked as Exhibit P24 and his
signature is marked as Exhibit P24(a).

35. During cross-examination, he has denied the
suggestion that he has not visited the scene of
occurrence and prepared Exhibit P24 in his office
itself at the instance of the Police. He admits that he
has not mentioned the timing at which the sketch
map was prepared; he admits that he has made only
measurement till Murudi and thereafter, in the office,
he has prepared the sketch map.

36. The prosecution examined the Head Constable as
PW13. He has deposed that he was given the FIR
along with the complaint in Crime No.260 of 2014 to

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


deliver the same to the Special Court on 12.10.2014
at about 08:30 p.m. and he has delivered the same
at 00.05 hours to the learned Special Judge at his
residence in Vijayapur and the FIR shown to him,
which is marked as Exhibit P25 and his signature is
marked as Exhibit P25(a) and he has also given a
report after having delivered the FIR and report is
marked as Exhibit P26 and his signature is marked
as Exhibit P26(a).

37. The prosecution examined one Ranganath as PW14
who was working as the PSI from 30.09.2013 to
24.10.2014. He has registered the case in Crime
No.260 of 2014 for the aforesaid offences and he has
issued a FIR to the Court through HC-840. Exhibit
P25 is the FIR shown to him and his signature is
marked as Exhibit P25(b). Thereafter, as per the
direction of Superintendent of Police, Vijayapur
handed over the further investigation to
Sri.S.M.Jeergal, in-charge Deputy Superintendent of

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


Police. As per the instructions of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, he apprehended the
accused on 14.10.2014 present before the Court, in
the forest area of Kanameshwar village and produced
him before the Deputy Superintendent of Police at
11:00 a.m. on that day.

38. During cross-examination, it is elicited that HC
No.840 has not reported him in writing, for having
delivered the FIR to the Court, but he telephonically
informed him having delivered the FIR and he
admitted that he has not mentioned the time in the
report - Exhibit P27.

39. The prosecution examined the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Indi as PW15. He has
worked from September 2013 to July 2015 and
Sindgi Police Station comes under his jurisdiction and
he took up the investigation on 13.10.2014 from the
in-charge Deputy Superintendent of Police as per the

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


order of Superintendent of Police and the order is
marked as Exhibit P28. He visited the police station
on 14.10.2014. He has sent the accused for medical
examination to Sindgi Hospital and he visited the
scene of occurrence and he has secured the presence
of PW2 and PW3 and conducted a spot panchanama
as per Exhibit P8 and Exhibit P8 bears his signature
and his signature is marked as Exhibit P8(b) and the
victim led them to the land belonging to Mallappa
and showed the place where actually she was
ravished by the accused and drawn the panchanama
as per Exhibit P9. Exhibit P9 bears his signature and
his signature is marked as Exhibit P9(a) and Tumtum
was seized under Exhibit P10 and it bears his
signature as Exhibit P10(b). He has seized MO Nos.2,
3 and 6; and 2 photographs were taken as per
Exhibits P5 and P6 and on the same day, he has
recorded the statement of PW5 as per Exhibit P12;
PW6 as per Exhibit P13; PW7 as per Exhibit P14;

- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


PW8 as per Exhibit P15; PW9 as per Exhibit P16;
CW11/Pundalik and CW12/Devappa and sent the
victim girl under the escort of WPC-1456 to the
learned Magistrate with a requisition to record her
statement under Section 164 CrPC and he has issued
the FSL report on 01.12.2014 and forwarded the
same to the Medical Officer seeking a final opinion
and obtained a final opinion and the final FSL report
is marked as Exhibit P31.

40. The prosecution examined one Dr.Pramod as PW16.
He has examined PW5 i.e., Renuka with a history of
assault and on examination, he has issued a wound
certificate as per Exhibit P29 and his signature is
marked as Exhibit P29(a).

41. During cross-examination, he has admitted that
these types of injuries are possible, if a person
fumbles and then falls resting the wrist and also

- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


admits that he has not mentioned the age of the
injuries in the wound certificate.

42. The prosecution examined the PSI as PW17, who has
deposed that on 13.10.2014, she was in the police
station. She was directed by the in-charge Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Indi and Superintendent of
Police, Vijayapur to go over to the Government
Hospital and record the statement of the victim, who
was taking treatment with the history of alleged rape
and she has recorded the statement as per Exhibit
P32. Exhibit P32 bears the signature of the witness
and it is marked as Exhibit P32(a).

43. During cross-examination, she admitted that she had
been to the hospital and she was under the
treatment and she was orally instructed by the in-
charge Deputy Superintendent of Police, Indi, to
record the statement. It is suggested that as per the
instruction of Deputy Superintendent of Police, she

- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


has just prepared the statement in her name to suit
the purpose of the case. The said suggestion has
been denied.

44. From the perusal of the evidence of PW1, it is clear
that PW1, being the complainant, in her
examination-in-chief itself, has stated that the
accused has not done anything to her and she has
not lodged any complaint against him and the said
witness has been treated as hostile.

45. Further, PW1 to PW8 have not supported the case of
the prosecution and they have been treated as
hostile.

46. PW9/Shivanand, who being the scribe of the
complaint i.e., Exhibit P1, has deposed that he has
drafted the complaint as dictated by the police in
Sindagi Police Station and he has not seen any
person from Murudi Village. On that day in the police
station, when he wrote the complaint, the Police

- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


have not recorded his statement. Except himself, no
other have signed the complaint in his presence.

47. From the perusal of the evidence of PW9, it is clear
that the complaint was drafted at the instance of the
Police and not at the instance of PW1 and even PW9
was treated as hostile by the prosecution.

48. The prosecution examined the doctor as PW10 who
examined the accused. Even the accused has
sustained injuries and he has issued a certificate
marked as Exhibit P20.

49. From the perusal of the evidence of doctor
Channamma Katti/PW11, who has examined the
victim, it is clear that in her evidence, she has stated
that as per the final opinion, recent signs of
penetration were absent and FSL report is positive
for the presence of seminal stains on the clothes and
there may be possibility of sexual assault. She is not

- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


firm that there was any sexual assault by the
accused on the victim.

50. From the perusal of the FSL report/Exhibit P31,
wherein the opinion of the Scientific Officer clearly
discloses that seminal stain was detected in Item
No.5a, which is one Chudidar bottom. However, the
FSL report does not disclose that the seminal stains
belong to the accused.

51. As far as Opinion No.2, it discloses that seminal
stains were not detected on Item No.1/Panty, Item
No.3/pubic hairs, Item No.4/panty, Item No.5b/one
chudidar top, Item No.5c/one duppatta, Item
No.5d/one slip, Item No.7/pubic hairs, Item
No.9/underwear, Item No.10/penile swabs.

52. Opinion No.3 discloses that Spermatozoa was not
detected in Article No.2 i.e., vaginal smear. Opinion
No.4 discloses that the skin tissue was not detected
in Item Nos.1 to 4, 5a to 5d, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Opinion

- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


No.5 discloses that vaginal Epitheleal cells were not
detected in Item No.10.

53. The Trial Court mainly placing reliance on Exhibit P31
i.e., FSL report, has come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed a rape on the victim girl.

54. The Trial Court, without considering that most of the
prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW9 were treated
as hostile, has committed an error in passing the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.

55. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, the
Trial Court without properly appreciating the entire
evidence on record, except extracting some portions
of the deposition of witnesses, has passed the
impugned judgment.

56. Further, PW2 and PW3, who are panch witnesses to
Exhibits P8 to P10, have turned hostile but the Trial

- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


Court has placed reliance on the evidence of PW2
and PW3 in paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment
and further, the Trial Court recorded its finding that
no doubt, the incident of kidnapping took place in the
open place near the village, however, there is no
evidence to show that any public had viewed, so this
is to say that in their presence victim girl and PW5,
were insulted through the incident of assault on the
victim girl and that of PW5 is proved.

57. Further, the appellant has produced the birth
certificates of his two sons, which clearly discloses
that the appellant is the father, and the victim girl is
the mother of two children. He has also produced
the marriage registration certificate dated
03.10.2026 evidencing the marriage solemnized
between the accused and victim on 18.12.2018,
which makes it clear that the appellant has married
the victim girl and they begotten two children.
Further, most importantly, the medical records do

- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

58. Thus, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated
the entire evidence on record and committed a grave
error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence.

59. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence is arbitrary,
erroneous and without appreciation of evidence, as
such, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of sentence.

60. In view of the above discussion, we answer point
No.1 in affirmative.
Reg. Point No.2 :

61. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:

- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed .
(ii) The impugned judgment and
order of sentence dated
26.04.2016 passed in Special
(POCSO) Case No.48 of 2014 by
the learned Special Judge and II
Additional Sessions Judge,
Vijayapur, are hereby set
.
aside
(iii) Consequently, the appellant is
acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 366,
355, 324, 376(2) of IPC read
with Section 5(l) and 6 of the
POSCO Act and Section 3(1)(xi)
and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
(iv) The bail bond(s) of the accused
i.e., the appellant in this appeal
stand cancelled;
(v) The fine amount, if any,
deposited by the accused shall

- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11582-DB
CRL.A No. 200081 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030042762016


be refunded to him on due
identification;
(vi) The MOs be destroyed by the
Trial Court after the appeal
period is over;
(vii) Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE



RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
Ct:pk