Gurumurthy M R vs State Of Karnataka - Criminal Appeal

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 21, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Gurumurthy M R @ Guru @ Gombe vs State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2026

Author: M.G.S. Kamal

Bench: M.G.S. Kamal

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14808
CRL.A No. 1231 of 2023

                HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                         DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                          BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2023 (C)
               BETWEEN:

               GURUMURTHY M.R @ GURU @ GOMBE
               S/O RAGHU
               AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
               R/A AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
               ALAMPUR VILLAGE
               CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI NIRMALA KRISHNA, ADV.)
               AND:

               1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                    BY BANAKAL POLICE STATION
                    REPRESENTED BY SPP
                    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    BENGALURU - 560 001.

               2.   LAKSHMI

Digitally signed W/O GANESH B.D.
by NANDINI M AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S
Location: HIGH
R/A BETTEGERE VILLAGE
COURT OF BANAKAL HOBLI
KARNATAKA
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 113.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI A PUNEETH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-2)

                     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
               ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION SENTENCE
               DATED 31.07.2021 IN SPECIAL CASE (POCSO) NO.14/2020 ON THE
               FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC I
               CHIKKAMAGALURU           CONVICTED         FOR          OFFENCE
               P/U/S.376(2)(n),450,506 OF [IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) AND SEC.5(j)(ii),5(L),6 OF POCSO
               ACT 2012 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
                           -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:14808
                                   CRL.A No. 1231 of 2023

HC-KAR

  THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                  ORAL JUDGMENT 1.   Appellant who is accused and convicted of the offences

punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 506 IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(L) & 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ' POCSO Act '), is before

this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence dated 31.07.2021 passed in Special

Case (POCSO) No.14/2020 by the Court of Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chikkamagalur, by which the

appellant-accused has been sentenced as under:

(i) For the offences punishable under Section
376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l) & 6 of the
POCSO Act, accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 20 years, and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and
in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one year.

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 450 of
IPC accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year, and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months.

(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 506 of
IPC, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year.
2. Brief facts and the case of the prosecution is that, when

the victim had gone to her grandfather's house at Allampura

Village, Chikkamagalur Taluk, about four years prior to

08.02.2020, she became acquainted with the

accused/appellant. That they continued to converse over

phone. The accused had represented that he was in love with

her and would marry her and in the month of June 2019, he

had come to her house at Bettagere village of Moodagere

Taluk, and when no one was there at home, he had enticed her

and had forcible sexual intercourse on four to five occasions.

That such forcible act was committed last at 11.00 a.m. on

27.06.2019. He had threatened her not to disclose the same to

any of her relatives by stating that he would not marry her if

she revealed to anyone. That he is responsible for her

becoming pregnant. A complaint in this regard was lodged by

her on 08.02.2020 before Banakal Police Station, who

                                                             NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

registered the case in Crime No.5/2020. Investigation was

conducted and statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate. Spot mahazar was

prepared Statement of the witnesses was taken. Accused was

arrested.

1. A charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable

under Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 506 of IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(L) & 6 of the POCSO Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and

sought to be tried. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses as

PW-1 to PW-15 and produced 21 documents which were

marked as Exs.P-1 to P-21. The statement of the accused

under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. He has denied the

incriminating evidence produced against him. The Trial Court

framed the following point for its consideration:

"1) ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.06.2019 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 11.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀQÌAvÀ
ªÉÆzÀ®Ä, CzÉà wAUÀ½£À°è £Á®ÌjAzÀ LzÀÄ ¨Áj, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ¨ÉlÖUÉgÉ
UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ZÁ¸Á-2 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ, AiÀiÁgÀÆ
E®èzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CwPÀæªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁr, ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 450
gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÀ£É߸ÀVzÁÝ£É, JAzÀÄzÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV
gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÉAiÉÄÃ?

2) DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ZÁ¸Á-2 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ CPÀæªÀÄ
¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ,
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, DPÉAiÀÄ EZÉÑUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV §®ªÀAvÀ¢AzÀ

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

¯ÉÊAVPÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ £Àqɹ, UÀ©üðuÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä PÁgÀt£ÁV, ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A

376(2) (J£ï) ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÉÆPÉÆìà PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 5(eÉ)(ii), 5(J¯ï), 6 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ
C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÀ£É߸ÀVzÁÝ£É, JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ
¥Àr¹zÉAiÉÄÃ?

3) DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ZÁ¸Á-2 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ §¯ÁvÁÌgÀªÁV gÉÊAVPÀ
¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ £ÀqɹzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÉüÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉzÀj¹,
¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 506 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÀ£É߸ÀVzÁÝ£É, JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß
C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÉAiÉÄÃ?"
4. On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court answered

the points for consideration in the affirmative and consequently

passed the order and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment

as noted above. Being aggrieved, the accused is before this

Court.

1. Learned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, taking

this Court to the records, more particularly, the document at

Ex.P-16, which is a certificate issued by Smt. Ningamma

Bommaiah Government High School, Bettagere, submits that

the date of birth of the victim is shown as 23.05.2002.

Calculated from the said date, her age as on the date of the

alleged incident would have been approximately 17 years 11

months. That there is no acceptable material evidence

produced by the prosecution to establish the fact of victim

                                           NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

being a child below the age of 18 years. She refers to [Sections

2(d)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127722677/) & 34 of the POCSO Act, and submits that unless and until

the prosecution proves and establishes beyond reasonable

doubt that the victim was a child below the age of 18 years, in

the manner as contemplated under Section 34 of the POCSO

Act, the appellant cannot be either tried or convicted for the

alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 & 6 of the POCSO

Act. She submits that though a document at Ex.P-16 - school

certificate has been produced, neither the author of the said

document is examined nor the original records based on which

the said the declaration is furnished has been produced before

the Court. Thus, she submits that the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove victim being below the age of 18

years. She further submits that since the prosecution has failed

to prove age of the victim, the only other ground which

probably would be available is to consider the case of the

accused under Section 376 of IPC. In this regard, she refers to

the deposition of the victim which was recorded on 30.06.2021

wherein, according to the Counsel, the victim has in

unequivocal terms deposed that she herself had called the

accused to come to her house on 27.06.2019 when no one was

                                         NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

at home. Thus, referring to this, she submits that it is not a

case of forcible sexual assault as sought to be made out by the

prosecution. It is a consensual relationship which the accused

had with the victim. Therefore, on both the counts, the order of

conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is

unsustainable. Hence, seeks for allowing the appeal.

1. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the State,

submits that the fact of victim being a child below the age of 18

years is established by the prosecution by producing the

document at Ex.P-16 which is the school record. The said

document is one of the documents contemplated under [Section

94](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187659331/) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2015 (for short, ' JJ Act '). Therefore, the said requirement of

law stands complied with unless the same is rebutted, which is

not the case. Once the prosecution has established the factum

of victim being below the age of 18 years, nothing further

survives for consideration as the burden shifts on the accused

under Section 29 of the POCSO Act to rebut the said

presumption.

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the victim, supplementing

the submissions made by the learned HCGP, submits that the

victim being aged below 18 years, has not been disputed by the

accused. Therefore, the contention now sought to be canvassed

by the Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in the light

of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the

prosecution on record. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

1. Heard. Perused the records.

2. Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act reads as under:

"2(d) 'Child' means any person below the age of
eighteen years."
10. Section 34 of the POCSO Act reads as under:

"34. Procedure in case of commission of offence
by child and determination of age by Special Court.-

(1) Where any offence under this Act is committed by a
child, such child shall be dealt with under the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016).

(2) If any question arises in any proceeding
before the Special Court whether a person is a child or
not, such question shall be determined by the Special
Court after satisfying itself about the age of such
person and it shall record in writing its reasons for such
determination.

(3) No order made by the Special Court shall be
deemed to be invalid merely by any subsequent proof
that the age of a person as determined by it under

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

sub-section (2) was not the correct age of that
person."
11. The Apex Court in the case of MAHADEO VS STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA - (2013)14 SCC 637, in paragraph no.12 has

held as under:

"12. We can also in this connection make reference to a
statutory provision contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, where under Rule 12, the
procedure to be followed in determining the age of a juvenile
has been set out. We can usefully refer to the said provision in
this context, inasmuch as under Rule 12(3) of the said Rules, it
is stated that:

"12. (3) In every case concerning a child
or juvenile in conflict with law, the age
determination inquiry shall be conducted by the
court or the Board or, as the case may be, by the
Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining--

(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent
certificates, if available; and in the absence
whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the
school (other than a play school) first attended;
and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
Panchayat;"

Under Rule 12(3)(b), it is specifically provided
that only in the absence of alternative methods
described under Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), the
medical opinion can be sought for. In the light of
such a statutory rule prevailing for ascertainment
of the age of a juvenile, in our considered
opinion, the same yardstick can be rightly

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

followed by the courts for the purpose of
ascertaining the age of a victim as well."
12. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH VS ANURUDH & ANOTHER - IN 2026 SCC ONLINE SC

40, in paragraph 13, has held as under:

"13. At the outset of this analysis, it is important
to delve into the scope and ambit of the POCSO Act.
Pardiwala J, writing for the Court in Just Rights for
Children Alliance v. S. Harish [2024 SCC OnLine SC
2611], examined in detail, the objects, reasons and
scope of the legislation. Relevant paragraphs of the
decision are extracted hereinbelow:

"43. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons for the enactment of the POCSO makes
it abundantly clear that since the sexual offences
against children were not adequately addressed
by the existing laws and a large number of such
offences were neither specifically provided for nor
were they adequately penalized, the POCSO has
been enacted to protect the children from the
offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and
pornography and to provide for establishment of
Special Courts for trial of such offences and for
matters connected therewith and incidental
thereto.

1. It further states that the POCSO is a 'self-contained comprehensive legislation' for the purpose of enforcing the rights of all children to safety, security and protection from sexual abuse and exploitation countered through commensurate penalties as an effective deterrence for sexual offences and pornography and has been enacted keeping in mind Articles 15 and 39 of the Constitution respectively and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Children. ...

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

1. The primary legislative intent behind the enactment of the POCSO was to create a comprehensive legal framework that would not only punish offenders but also provide a child- friendly system for the recording of evidence, investigation, and trial of offenses. The POCSO was designed to cover all forms of sexual abuse against children, including sexual harassment, child pornography, and aggravated sexual assault, among others. It aimed to ensure the safety and dignity of child victims during the legal process, with specific provisions that mandate in- camera trials, the presence of a trusted adult during the proceedings, and the prohibition of aggressive questioning of child victims."
2. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has taken

into consideration the provisions of Section 94 of the JJ Act and

Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Model Rules, 2007. The said provision, as noted above,

mandate the prosecution to produce the documents in the

nature of certificate of matriculation or equivalent, in the

absence whereof, certificate of date of birth of the school first

attended and in the absence thereof, birth certificate given by

the Corporation and Municipal Authorities. In the absence of

any of the aforesaid documents, the victim is required to be

subjected to ossification test as noted above.

1. In the present case, Ex.P-16 is the certificate apparently

issued by the Head Master of Smt. Ningamma Bommaiah

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

Government High School. Perusal of the said document would

indicate that the victim was apparently studying in 9th Standard

and was continuously absent and her date of birth shown as

23.05.2002, which has been taken from her Registration

No.19/2017-18. Her admission to the said school was on

20.05.2017, which is not the school first attended by the

victim. Clearly the said document do not comply with the

requirement of Section 94 of the JJ Act as noted above and the

said document do not fall in any of the categories of the

documents required to be produced by the prosecution.

1. In addition, even the author of the said document has not

been examined. No material is brought on record to show

conducting a Ossification test of the victim. Considering her age

admitted as on the date of the incident to be above 17 years,

even as per the victim, and in the absence of any cogent

documentary evidence, this Court, is of the considered view

that there is considerable force in the submission made by the

learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has

failed to prove and establish that victim was a child below the

age of 18 years. Therefore, charging the accused of the

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

offences punishable under Sections 5 & 6 of the POCSO Act and

convicting him thereof is unsustainable.

1. Having said that, the next point that requires

consideration is the offence alleged against the accused

punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. Sections 375 & 376(2)(n) of IPC reds as under:

"375. Rape.- A man is said to commit "rape" if he-

(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the
vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or
makes her to do so with him or any other person;
or

(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the
body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the
urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so
with him or any other person; or

(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so
as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra,
anus or any part of body of such women or makes
her to do so with him or any other person; or

(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of
a woman or makes her to do so with him or any
other person,

       under the circumstances falling under any of the
       following seven descriptions:-

First.- Against her will.

               Second.-     Without her consent.
                            - 14 -
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

             Thirdly.-    With her consent, when her consent
                          has been obtained by putting her or
                          any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man
knows that he is not her husband and
that her consent is given because she
believes that he is another man to
whom she is or believes herself to be
lawfully married.

Fifthly.- With her consent when, at the time of
giving such consent, by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication
or the administration by him
personally or through another of any
strupefying or unwholesome
substance, she is unable to
understand the nature and
consequences of that to which she
gives consent."

       "376. Punishment for rape.- (1) xxx

       (2) Whoever, -

             (a) xxx

             xxx (n) commits rape repeatedly on the same
       woman,

       shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
       term which shall not be less than ten years, but
       which may extend to imprisonment for life, which
       shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that
       person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

1. The deposition of the victim recorded in 30.06.2021 at

paragraph 2 reads as under:

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

"2. £Á£ÀÄ vÉÆÃlzÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÉ . ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.06.2019
gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÀPÌÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà PÀgÉ¢zÉÝ. D ¢£À £ÀªÀÄä
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è J®ègÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÌÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÄÀ . D ¢£ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÇÀ £Á«§âgÀÄ
¥sÉÆä£À°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÉÝêÉ. £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁgÀÆ £À£Àß §UÉÎ
C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ßÀ CPÀ̤UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CwÛUÉUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæUÉ
ºÉýzÉÝãÉ. DvÀ CzÀPÆ
À Ì, £À£ÀUÆ
À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝ£É.
DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß w½¹zÉÝãÉ. £À£Àß
ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ FUÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð £Á®ÄÌ wAUÀ¼ÄÀ DVzÉ. ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ
£ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrªÀÅzÀPÌÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è J®ègÄÀ PÀÆvÀÄ
ZÀað¹zÉÝêÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ E§âgÆ
À ¸ÉÃjzÀgÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ
J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛvÄÀ Û, DzÀgÉ D jÃw vÉÆAzÀgÉ DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£Àß
eÉÆvÉUÉ EgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ ºÉýzÀÝ. £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ
DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¨sÉÃn DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ EzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ
ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ ºÉýPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ
ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ d£Àä ¤ÃrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ
ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."

1. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the

appellant, the victim has voluntarily deposed in unequivocal

terms that on 27.06.2019 she herself had called the accused to

come home when there was no one at home and that she was

aware of the consequences of her relationship with the

accused. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the

accused had forcible sexual intercourse against the will of the

victim cannot be sustained.

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14808

HC-KAR

1. On both the counts, prosecution has failed to bring home

the guilt of the accused in the manner known to law.

Accordingly, appeal succeeds and I proceed to pass the

following order:

(i) Criminal appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 31.07.2021 passed by the Court of Addl.
District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chikkamagaluru, in Special
Case (POCSO) No.14/2020, is set aside.

(iii) The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 506 of IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(L), and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(iv) The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is
not required in any other case.

(v) Bail bonds and sureties stands cancelled.

(vi) Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
prison authorities.

Sd/-

(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE

KK