THE STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION vs SRI PRABHAKAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1852 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 01.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
AND:
1. SRI PRABHAKAR
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA T
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ATTENDER,
CADA COLONY QUARTERS, MALAVAGOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA
- 577 201.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
(V/O DATED: 05/10/2026 SRI. SRINIVAS, AMICUS CURIAE FOR
RESPONDENT.)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. FOR
THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
AND ORDER OF ACQUITAL DATED 22.07.2016 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA IN S.C.NO.10/2014 THEREBY ACQUITTING
THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 354,506 OF
IPC AND SEC.8 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of Acquittal dated 22.07.2016 passed in
SC.No.10/2014 by the I Addl. Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Shivamogga (for short, 'the trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the victim
PW1 is a minor girl aged about 11 years. On 08.02.2013
mother of the victim was hospitalized. When CW2 told victim
to inform the nurse to change the glucose and when victim told
to the accused about that, the accused dragged her hands and
thereafter hugged her and misbehaved with her. Accused also
threatened her and this fact was informed by the neighbouring
patient to victim's father. Thus, the accused has committed the
offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 of IPC and Section
8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. Upon issuance of summons, the accused appeared
before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. On hearing, the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
trial Court framed the charges and same were read over and
explained to the accused. Having understood the same,
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
has examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6, 6 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded.
Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence
evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both
sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred
this appeal.
6. The learned HCGP Sri Nageshwarappa K appearing
for the appellant-State, would submit that the impugned
Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Court below by
acquitting the Accused of the charged offences punishable
under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC and under Section 8 of
POCSO Act, 2012, is contrary to evidence and materials on
record and the same is liable to be set aside. He would submit
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
that PW1 is the victim/minor girl and she has categorically
stated about the incident, wherein the Accused dragged her
hands and thereafter hugged her and misbehaved with her.
Accused also threatened her and this fact was informed by the
neighbouring patient to her father. It is after identifying the
accused the person who committed the said heinous Act, a
complaint came to be lodged as per Exhibit P1. There is
nothing elicited in the cross-examination of the said PW1 so as
to disbelieve her evidence. Hence, the Court below has
committed a grave error in acquitting the Accused thereby
ignoring the said evidence of the material witness who is the
victim in this case.
7. He would further submit that evidence of PW1 has
been corroborated by PW3, father of the victim. He has also
stated that the victim showed accused to him and thereafter
complaint came to be lodged. There is no animosity for to the
said witnesses to falsely depose against the Accused.
8. PW5 is the P.S.I. who registered the case and
issued FIR Exhibit P4 to the Court. PW2 is the witness to the
spot mahazar-Ex.P2.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
9. Though, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 are sufficient
to hold the guilt of the accused, however, the Court below,
without appreciating their evidence in the proper perspective,
has acquitted the Accused which has resulted in miscarriage of
justice.
10. The reasons assigned by the Court below that PW.6
has turned hostile and there is no Test Identification Parade
conducted etc. to disbelieve the evidence of the victim girl, is
not legal and proper inasmuch as the victim has identified the
Accused in the Court which is sufficient to prove the case of the
prosecution.
11. The Court below is not justified in holding that no
employer or staff of the hospital has been examined to prove
that Accused was on duty on the date of the incident, when the
victim and PW1 has clearly deposed regarding the presence of
the Accused in the hospital and there is no plea of alibi taken
by the Accused.
12. The Court below was not proper in holding that
defence has rebutted presumption under Section 29 of POCSO
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
Act, when such presumption available under Section 29 of the
Act, has not been satisfactory rebutted or contrary is proved by
examining any witnesses by the Accused.
13. The Court below ought to have appreciated the
evidence of PWs1 and 3 in proper perspective and ought to
have convicted the Accused in accordance with law. On all
these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
14. Despite service of notice, the respondent remained
absent and unrepresented. Hence, Sri N Srinivas, Advocate is
appointed as Amicus Curiae for respondent. The Amicus Curiae
Sri N. Srinivas would submit that the trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts and also submit as to the scope of Appellate Court in
acquittal cases.
15.
To substantiate his argument, the learned Amicus
Curiae relied on the following judgments:
1. CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND
ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND -
(2025)5 SCC 433;
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
2. BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2024)8
SCC 149;
3. CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
(2007)4 SCC 415; and
4. H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
(2023)9 SCC 581.
16. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of records, the following points for my consideration:
1. Whether the state has made out grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgement of
Acquittal?
2. What order?
17. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: As per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
18. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined six witnesses as PWs1 to 6 and marked 6 documents
as Exs.P1 to P6.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
19. PW1 is the victim. She has deposed that PW5 is her
father and Shobha is her mother. She has filed complaint
about 2½ years ago, her mother was admitted to the hospital,
she was sitting by the side of her mother. The neighbouring
patient requested her to call nurse. So, she went out of the
room. She saw the accused and requested to change the drips.
At that time, accused had dragged the victim by holding her
hand. He hugged her and kept her hands on his private part.
Some how, the victim escaped and came near her mother.
Even after this, accused came to the door and called her by
making sign. This incident has been informed to her father by
the neighbouring lady. This was also informed to the doctor
and the name was given as Prabhakar and he is the Ward-boy.
The spot has been shown to the police.
20. PW2 Manjunath is the attester to mahazar at
McGann Hospital.
21. PW3, father of the victim, has deposed that his wife
was admitted to the Hospital and she was in the ICU. On the
date of incident, he had returned home from the Hospital and
received a phone call wherein he was informed that a person
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
has dragged his daughter and misbehaved with her. He
immediately came and enquired with the staff. It was revealed
that the accused name is Prabhakar. Then on the next day,
victim has shown the accused.
22. PW4-Veerappa, has deposed that the accused was
near the compound and he was taken to the custody and was
produced before the investigating officer.
23. PW5 is the Police sub Inspector. He has deposed as
to his part of investigation.
24. PW6-Savita has deposed that about three years ago
a woman was admitted to the hospital. A girl was also there by
the side of that lady. The victim came weeping, and when she
was questioned, she informed that somebody has threatened
her and that person was wearing white dress. She further
stated that she did not tell what happened and she could not
make out what happened. She is treated as hostile by the
prosecution and was cross examined by Public Prosecutor.
25. The alleged incident took place on 8.02.2013 at
2:30 pm and the complaint was lodged on 9.02.2013 at
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
2:15 pm. FIR was submitted to the Court on 9.02.2013 at
23.00 hours. The prosecution has not explained anything as to
the delay in filing the complaint and also delay in dispatching
FIR to the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the
accused is working as Ward-boy in the hospital. To substantiate
this, the investigating officer has not produced any document
to show that on the date of commission of offence, accused was
working as Ward-boy in the said Hospital. PW6 said to be an
inpatient in the hospital, has not supported the case of the
prosecution. The investigating officer has not examined the
RMO or the HOD or the Head Nurse of the hospital.
26. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim or
her parents do not know about the name of the accused and on
what basis the name of the accused was inserted as Prabhakar
in the FIR has not been disclosed by the prosecution. The trial
Court has observed that the spot where the accused
committed the alleged offence and the narration of the victim
as to the spot, are quite contrary. Further, the trial Court has
observed that the prosecution has not conducted test
identification parade and there is no evidence to show that the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61382
CRL.A No. 1852 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010449642016
accused was employed in the hospital. Considering all these
lapses committed by the prosecution, the trial court has
acquitted the accused. On appreciation and re-examination of
the entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal or factual
error in the judgment of acquittal. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the
judgements relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae for the
respondent, I answer Point No.1, in the Negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
27. For the reasons afore, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R
i. Appeal is dismissed ;
ii. Registry is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.
10,000/- to Amicus Curiae Sri N Srinivas, for
the valuable services rendered by him in
disposing of this case.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA,LNN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72