Homestay Owner Acquitted In Attempted-Rape Case After Karnataka HC Finds Complainant’s Testimony Unreliable, Age Unproven

The prosecution alleged that, in March 2015, the accused called the victim to his home stay and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.

The victim also alleged that another person later attempted to rape her.

The Sessions Court found insufficient evidence to convict for completed rape but convicted the accused of attempted rape under Section 376(2)(i) read with Section 511 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act read with Section 511 IPC.

The accused appealed against conviction; the State appealed seeking enhancement of sentence.

The victim’s age was sought to be proved through a school admission-register extract and transfer certificate relating to her seventh-standard education.

Section 34 of the POCSO Act, read with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, governs age determination: where age is in doubt, the statutory sequence prioritises a school date-of-birth or matriculation certificate, then a birth certificate from the specified public authority, and only in their absence a medical age-determination test.

The court also relied on the principle that a prosecutrix’s sole testimony may sustain a conviction if it is trustworthy and of sterling quality, but not where material flaws make it unreliable.

The charges and conviction concerned Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, each read with Section 511 IPC.

The age evidence did not satisfy the court that the victim was a minor: the prosecution produced neither a matriculation/equivalent certificate nor a birth certificate, and the school records relied on related to seventh standard.

The witness who issued the records could not explain the basis for the transfer certificate or date-of-birth entry, and the person who made the entries was not examined.

Independently, the court found the victim’s evidence unreliable. Her account of the alleged March incident was not disclosed during her initial counselling, when she instead identified another person as having sexually exploited her; the complaint was lodged later.

Her statements and medical history also referred to sexual intercourse with that other person in April, while she continued working at the accused’s home stay. The medical report did not corroborate her account, and the alleged bloodstained undergarments and bedding were not seized.

The High Court allowed the accused’s appeal and dismissed the State’s enhancement appeal.

It set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(i) read with Section 511 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act read with Section 511 IPC, and acquitted the accused.

The bail bond was cancelled; the trial court’s order disbursing victim compensation under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, was left undisturbed.