Karnataka HC Acquits Man In 2012 Rape Case, Finding Prosecution Failed To Prove College Student Was Under 16

The prosecution alleged that on 25 September 2012, the appellant took the complainant’s daughter from a bus stop in a car and sexually assaulted her at a house in Belluru Palya.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment for the former offence and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for the latter.

On appeal, the appellant challenged, among other matters, the victim’s age and the sufficiency of the evidence.

The High Court considered the victim’s transfer certificate, medical age estimate, medical examination and forensic report.

The Court considered Sections 366A and 376 IPC and the pre-amendment version of Section 375 IPC, under which the age of the victim was relevant to whether intercourse constituted rape irrespective of consent.

It also referred to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in assessing proof of age, and Section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the medical examination and reporting of a rape victim.

The Court’s decision turned on whether the prosecution evidence established the victim’s age and proved the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The transfer certificate recorded the victim’s date of birth as 18 February 1997, but the Court found it insufficient, in the absence of the birth certificate, school admission-register extract or SSLC marks card.

The medical age certificate estimated that she was more than 16 but less than 17 years old, and the prosecution did not produce evidence establishing that she was below 16 on the date of the incident.

As to the charges, the Court found that the prosecution had not established the essential ingredients of Section 366A.

It also noted the four-day delay before medical examination, deficiencies in the medical history and report, and the forensic finding that seminal stain and spermatozoa were not detected in the examined items.

On the evidence as a whole, it found no cogent and reliable basis for conviction under Section 376 IPC.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the Sessions Court’s judgment and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 366A and 376 IPC.

It also cancelled the appellant’s bail bond and directed that any fine deposited be refunded.