## 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 19, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Hampaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2026

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11212
CRL.A No. 577 of 2025

                  HC-KAR

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2025 (C)
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.    HAMPAIAH,
                        S/O, SABAIAH,
                        AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
                        R/AT SHEET HOUSE
                        IN FRONT OF S.L.V HARIDHAMA APARTMENT,
                        B.H.E.L LAYOUT,
                        VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
                        BENGALURU. 560097
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                  (BY SRI. ABHAY RAJIV SHIVAM ADVOCATE FOR
                   SRI NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
                  AND:

Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN STATION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001

                  2.    SMT ROSHANI
                        W/O LATE LALA BAHADUR
                        AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                        R/AT SECURITY ROOM,
                        SLV HARIDHAMA APARTMENT,
                          -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:11212
                                   CRL.A No. 577 of 2025

HC-KAR

 BHEL LAYOUT,
 VIDYARANYAPURA,
 BANGALORE-97.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. VAISHNAVI VIBHUTE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHARAN L. JAIN, ADVCOATE FOR R1)
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C (U/S 415(2) BNSS)
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 23.11.2024 AND SENTENCED ON
25.11.2024 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT HEREIN FROM OFFENCES P/U/S 3 R/W 4(2) OF
POCSO ACT.THE ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RI
FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3 R/W
4(2) OF POCSO ACT AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1,00,000/- IN
DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO SI
FOR 01 YEAR; AND ETC.

 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.    The appellant has preferred the appeal against the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23rd

November, 2024 passed in Spl. CC No.1978 of 2022 by

the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-IV at

Bengaluru (for short the "trial Court"). -3-

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. Parties in this appeal are referred to as per their rank

and status before the trial Court.

1. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the

Inspector of Police, Yelahanka New Town Police Station-

Bangalore submitted the charge sheet against the accused

for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 376(3) of Indian

Penal Code and Section 5(1) r/w Section 6 of Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (for short

" POCSO Act "). It is alleged by the prosecution that the

victim-minor girl, along with her mother Roshini-

complainant, grandmother-Juna, grandfather-Khalak and

other siblings are residing in the security room of SLV

Haridhama Apartment. Accused-Hampaiah is residing in a

sheet house opposite to their apartment belonging to

CW18-Smt. Devika. On 07th June, 2022 at about 01.00

pm in the afternoon, the victim girl and her sister Sharmila

were playing on the road in front of the apartment,

grandmother-Juna was at parking place of the said

apartment. The accused had taken the victim girl and her -4- NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

sister Sharmila to his house by offering chocolates. He

gave chocolates to Sharmila and sent her back and made

victim girl to stay in his house. Sharmila came back and

told her mother that Hampaiah had taken both of them,

sent her back by giving chocolate and told the victim girl

to stay back in his house. Juna immediately went near the

house of Hampaiah and when she peeped through broken

window glass of his house, she found that victim girl was

undressed and was lying on a bed sheet. The accused, by

removing his pant, was lying on her and committing

sexual assault on the victim girl. When Juna knocked the

door of his house, the accused opened the door and ran

away. On the basis of First Information Report lodged by

the mother of the victim girl as per Exhibit P1, Yelahanka

New Town Police have registered a case in Crime No.174

of 2022 on 08th June, 2022 at about 01.00 am for the

offence under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 6, and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. After

investigation, IO has submitted the charge sheet against -5- NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

the accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. After filing the charge

sheet, cognizance was taken and case was registered in

Special Case No.1978 for 2022. The accused was arrested

by the police on 06th August, 2022. Since the date of

arrest, accused is in judicial custody.

1. Having heard upon charges, trial Court has framed

the charges for the commission of alleged offences. The

same were read over and explained to the accused.

Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

1. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in

all, examined sixteen witnesses as PWs1 to 16. 28 were

documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to 28. Twelve

material objects were marked as MOs1 to 12. On closure

of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has -6- NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

However, he did not choose to lead any defence on his

behalf. During the course of cross-examination of PW2,

four documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D4. The

accused, in his statement, has stated as under:

"£Á£ÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV ¸ÀAeÉ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ §gÀÄwÛz,ÉÝ £Á£ÀÄ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀÄ 15 ¢ªÀ¸À DVvÀÄ.Û £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁr®è. ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ
¸À°¹
è zÁÝg.É "
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial

Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 3 read with 4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 25 years for the offence under Section 3 read with 4(2)

of POCSO Act and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/- and in

default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple

imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by the

impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence,

the appellant has preferred this appeal. -7-

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. Sri Abhay Rajiv Shivam, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and

order on sentence is liable to be set aside as the same is

against the well-established principles of criminal law. The

prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case beyond all

reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not led any

evidence to prove that the appellant is involved in the

commission of offence. There is no credible evidence

which has been laid by the prosecution to prove the case

beyond all reasonable doubt. The victim girl-PW15 has

completely turned hostile in her cross-examination. It is

submitted that evidence of PW1 and victim girl is filled

with inconsistencies and contradictions which does not

inspire confidence to believe the same and is far from

truth. The victim girl was tutored by her mother. PW1, in

her cross examination deposed that she has not seen the

incident. It was PW2 who saw the incident. She further

deposed the victim and PW1 used to live in a place where

she was surrounded by lot of people. She has stated that -8- NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

she does not know what was written in the complaint-

Exhibit P1. She does not know to read or write. She has

admitted that she signed the blank paper near her house

which is seen in Exhibit P1 as directed by the police. She

has deposed that a person named Shyam told her to only

state whatever the police have said, otherwise she will

have to face the consequences. When asked about the

CCTV cameras in the Apartment, she has stated that she

does not know about it and no CCTV footages are

collected. Further, it is submitted that CW1 has identified

the sheet house as per Exhibit D1. When Exhibit D1 was

shown to CW2 and asked whether there is a window in the

said sheet house, she has denied saying that she does not

know and when asked if the window is about 5 to 6 feet,

she has stated that if she goes there and see, she will get

to know. She has further deposed that there is no CCTV

installed in the apartments. Further, she has deposed that

she has put her left thumb mark on the blank sheet given

by police and has deposed that the police did not seize any -9- NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

material evidences. The mahazar witnesses turned hostile.

They have stated that since police forced them to sign on

the blank paper, they have signed the same. Hence, he

submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and

order on sentence is liable to be set aside. On all these, it

is sought to allow this appeal. To substantiate his

argument relied on the following decisions:

1. NARENDRA KUMAR v. STATE (NCT of Delhi)
   reported in (2012)7 SCC 171.

2. SURESH N. BHUSARE v. STATE OF
   MAHARASHTRA reported in (1999)1 SCC 220.

3. As against this, Smt. N. Anitha Girish, learned High

Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-

State and Smt. Vaishnavi Vibhute learned Advocate

appearing for respondent No.2, would submit that the trial

court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in

proper perspective and there is no ground to interfere with

the impugned judgment of conviction and order on

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

sentence passed by the trial court and sought for dismissal

of the appeal.

1. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on

perusal of materials placed before me, the following points

would arise for my consideration:

1) Whether the trial Court is justified in
convicting the accused for the offences
under Section 3 read with 4(2) of POCSO
Act;

2) Whether the appellant is liable for
punishment for offence under Section 8 of
POCSO Act?

3) What Order?
10. My answer to the points are as under:

Point No.1: in the negative;

Point No.2: in the affirmative; and

Point No.3: as per final order

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

Regarding Points 1 and 2:
11. I have examined the materials placed before me.

Before appreciation of the evidence on record, it is

necessary to mention here as to the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [TAMEEZUDDIN v. STATE

(NCT of Delhi](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160402/)), reported in (2009) 15 SCC 566, wherein at

paragraph 9 of the judgment, it is observed as under:

"9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence
of the prosecutrix must be given predominant
consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to
be accepted even if the story is improbable and
belies logic, would be doing violence to the very
principles which govern the appreciation of evidence
in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that the
story is indeed improbable."
12. In the case of NARENDRA KUMAR (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 22, 30 and 32 of

the judgment, observed thus:

"22. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found
suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies
with other material, the prosecutrix making

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

deliberate improvement on material point with a
view to rule out consent on her part and there being
no injury on her person even though her version may
be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her
evidence.

1. The prosecution has to prove its case
   beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support
   from the weakness of the case of defence. There
   must be proper legal evidence and material on
   record to record the conviction of the accused. The
   conviction can be based on sole testimony of the
   prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her
   testimony. However, in case the court has reason not
   to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face
   value, it may look for corroboration. In case the
   evidence is read in its totality and the story projected
   by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the
   prosecutrix's case becomes liable to be rejected.

2. ...... The given facts and circumstances
   make it crystal clear that if the evidence of the
   prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of the
   circumstances along with other evidence on record,
   in which the offence is alleged to have been
   committed, we are of the view that her deposition
   does not inspire confidence. The prosecution has not
   disclosed the true genesis of the crime. In such a

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

fact situation, the appellant becomes entitled to the
benefit of doubt."
13. In the decision in SURESH N. BHUSARE (SUPRA) at

paragraphs 9 and 10, it is observed thus:

"9. With all these infirmities in her evidence, no
implicit reliance could have been placed upon her
evidence. The High Court having failed to consider all
these important aspects erroneously came to the
conclusion that her evidence was reliable. The High
Court was wrong in reversing the order of acquittal
passed by the trial court and convicting the appellant
for both the offences.

1. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. They are therefore ordered to be released from jail, if their presence in jail is not required in connection with some other case."
2. In the case on hand, the genesis of the case arise

from the complaint given by PW1 as per Exhibit P1. In the

complaint, it is stated as under:

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

" ಷಯ- ನನ ಅ ಾ ಪ ಮಗ ಾದ ಕು ಾ ಹ ಾ, 4
ªÀµÀð ಎಂಬ ಮಗು ನ ೕ ೆ ಹಂಪಯ ಎಂ!ಾತನು ಅ ಾ #ಾರ
ಾ%ರುವ ಬ'ೆ( ದೂರು.

+ಾನು ಈ ೕ ೆ -./ರುವ ಾಸದ12 3ಾಸ3ಾ4ದು5,
ಮ+ೆಗಳ 7ೆಲಸ ಾ%7ೊಂಡು :ೕವನ ನ;ೆಸು-ರು ೇ+ೆ. +ಾವ< 10
ವಷ ಗಳ =ಂ>ೆ +ೇ ಾಳ?ಂದ 7ೆಲಸ7ಾ@4 !ೆಂಗಳA 'ೆ ಬಂದು
ಸು ಾರು 7 ವಷ ಗ.ಂದ EzÉÃ ಾಸದ12 3ಾಸ3ಾ4ರು ೇ3ೆ.

ನನ'ೆ ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಮಗು Dಾಗೂ ಎರಡು DೆಣುF
ಮಕ@.ರು ಾGೆ. ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾH ಬಹದೂ5I J.DೆL.E.ಎH
ೇಔN ನ12ರುವ ಎO.ಎH. ಹ >ಾಮ C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmïನ12
Pೆಕೂ QRಾ4 7ೆಲಸ ಾಡು-ದು5, +ಾನು ಇ>ೇ
«C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï Pೆಕೂ Q ರೂಮ 12 3ಾಸ ರು ೇ3ೆ. ನನ
ಗಂಡ ಾH ಬಹದೂ5I ರವರು ಮೂರು ವಷ ದ =ಂ>ೆ ಮೃತಪQUದು5,
+ಾನು ನಮV ಅ ೆ ಜೂ+ಾ, ಾವ ಕಲX ಮತು ಮಕ@ ೆA ಂ?'ೆ ಇ>ೆ
C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï Pೆಕೂ Q ರೂಮ 12 3ಾಸ3ಾ4ರು ೇ3ೆ.

+ಾನು ?+ಾಂಕ 7.6.2022 ರಂದು ಮYಾ ಹ ಸು ಾರು
ಒಂದು ಗಂZೆಯ12 +ಾವ< 3ಾಸ ದ5 C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï Pೆಕೂ Q
ಮ+ೆಯ12 ಅಡು'ೆ ÉÝ ÀÄ. ನಮV ಅ ೆ ಇ>ೆ ಮ+ೆಯ
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛz£
ಾ[ಂ \ ಸ]ಳದ°èದ5ರು. ನನ ಮಕ@ ಾದ ಶ_ ಾ ಮತು ಹ ತ
C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï ಮುಂ`ಾಗದ ರPೆಯ12 ಆಟ ಆಡು-ದ5ರು.
ಸು ಾರು 2 ಗಂZೆ ಸಮಯದ12 ನಮV ಅ ೆ ನನ ಎರಡ+ೇ ಮಗ ಾದ
ಹ ಾಳನು ಮ+ೆ'ೆ ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು ಬಂ?ದು5, ನಮV ಅ ೆ

-./>ೆ5ೕ+ೆಂದGೆ, +ಾವ< 3ಾಸ ದ5 C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmïನ ಮ+ೆcಂದ
ಎದುರುಗ;ೆಯ ಒಂದು dೕN ಮ+ೆಯ12 3ಾಸ ರುವ ಹಂಪಯ

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

ಎಂಬುವನು ನನ ಮಕ@ ಾದ ಶ_ ಳ ಮತು ಹ ಾಳನು #ಾಕ ೇN
7ೊಡು ೇ+ೆಂದು Dೇ. ಮ+ೆ'ೆ ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4 ಶ_ ಾUÉ

ಾಕ ೇN 7ೊಟುU ಮ+ೆ'ೆ 3ಾಪO ಕಳe=/ ಹ ಾಳನು ಅವನ

ಮ+ೆಯ12 ಇ /7ೊಂ%ರು ಾ+ೆಂದು ಶ_ ಾ ಮ+ೆ'ೆ ಬಂದು ನಮV
ಅ ೆ'ೆ Dೇ.ದ5 ಂದ, ತfಣ ನಮV ಅ ೆ ಹಂಪಯ ರವರ ಮ+ೆ'ೆ ಬ.
Dೋ4 ಮ+ೆಯ [ಟ[ಯ12 +ೋ%>ಾಗ ಹಂಪಯ ನನ ಮಗ ಾದ
ಹ ಾಳ ಬZೆUಗಳನು Jgh ಅವನ ಾ ಂಟನು ೆ'ೆದು ಅ ಾ #ಾರ
ಾಡು-ದ5ನು +ೋ% ನಮV ಅ ೆ !ಾ4ಲು ಬ;ೆ>ಾಗ ಹಂಪಯ ನು
!ಾ4ಲು ೆ'ೆದು ಓ% Dೋದ+ೆಂದು ನಮV ಅ ೆ ನನ'ೆ Dೇ.ದರು.

+ಾನು ನನ ಮಗ ಾದ ಹ ಾಳನು +ೋ%>ಾಗ ನನ ಮಗಳ
ಬZೆU ಗ1ೕjಾ4ದು5, ನನ ಮಗಳ ತುQಗಳe ಊ?7ೊಂ%ದ5ವ<, ನನ
ಮಗಳ ಮ ಾಂ ಗದ ಬ. 'ಾಯ3ಾ4ರುವ<ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ?ದು5, ಈ
ಬ'ೆ( ನನ ಮಗಳನು 7ೇ.>ಾಗ ಹಂಪಯ ಎಂಬುವನು ZÁPÀ¯ÃÉ mï
7ೊಡುವ<>ಾ4 ಮ+ೆ'ೆ ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4 ನನ ಬZೆU Jgh ತುQ
ಕgh ಈ ೕ- ಾ%ರು ಾ+ೆ ಎಂದು Dೇ.ದಳe.

ನಮV ಮ+ೆಯ ಮುಂ>ೆ ಹಂಪಯ ಎಂಬುವನು !ಾಸ3ಾ4ದು5,
ಆ'ಾಗ ನನ ಮಕ@ಳನು ಾತ+ಾ%/ ZÁPÀ¯ÉÃmï 7ೊಡು-ದು5,
ನಮ'ೆ ಪ ಚಯದವ+ಾ4ರು ಾ+ೆ. ಈ ?ನ ಮYಾ ಹ ನನ ಮಗ ಾದ
ಹ ಾ.'ೆ #ಾಕ ೇN 7ೊಡುವ<>ಾ4 ನಂJ/ ಮ+ೆಯ ಒಳ'ೆ
ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4 ನನ ಮಗ.'ೆ ೈಂ4ಕ3ಾ4 ಹ ೆ2
ನ;ೆ/ರು ಾ+ೆ.

ನನ ಮಗಳe ತುಂ!ಾ ಸುPಾಗು->ೆ, ೖ7ೈ +ೋವ< ಆಗು->ೆ
ಎಂದು Dೇ.ದ5 ಂದ Pಾ ನ ಾ%/ರು ೇ+ೆ Dಾಗೂ ನನ ಮಗಳ
ಬZೆUಗಳನು ªÁµï ಾ%ರು ೇ+ೆ. ಈ #ಾರ3ಾ4 ನನ'ೆ ಏನು

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

ಾಡ!ೇ7ೆಂದು -.ಯದ 7ಾರಣ ನನ'ೆ ಪ ಚಯದವರ12 -./
ತಡ3ಾ4 ಬಂದು ದೂರು pೕ%ರು ೇ+ೆ.

ನನ ಅ ಾ ಪ ಮಗು 'ೆ #ಾಕ ೇN 7ೊಡುವ<>ಾ4 ನಂJ/
ಮ+ೆಯ ಒಳ'ೆ ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4 ೈಂ4ಕ ಹ ೆ2 ನ;ೆ/ರುವ
ಹಂಪಯ ಎಂಬುವನ ರುದq 7ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ಜರು4ಸ!ೇ7ೆಂದು
7ೋರು ೇ+ೆ."
15. A careful examination of Complaint-Exhibit P1 makes

it crystal clear that on the basis of the information given

by PW2-Juna, PW1-Roshini has lodged a complaint. In

Exhibit P1, it is said that she has stated the contents of

the complaint in Hindi. Same is also shown in Exhibit P1.

During the course of cross-examination of PW1, she has

deposed that she does not know the contents of Exhibit

P1. She does not know to read or write and the Police

took her LTM near her house on Exhibit P1. PW1 has

stated that, on the date of incident, though police took

Neela, Marappa, Prashanta, Venkatesha and Chandra, but

have not taken any action against Neela, Prashanth and

Marappa and filed false charge against the present

accused. But, Exhibit P12-FIR reveals that the case is

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

registered only against Hampaiah and not the other

accused. Mere statement of PW1 as to the other accused,

does not mean that other three accused are also involved

in the offence. During the course of cross-examination,

PW1 has clearly admitted that one Shyam, a local

resident, has said that she has to speak according to what

the police have told her, otherwise she will be in trouble.

This argument advanced on behalf of the accused, cannot

be accepted.

1. PW29-Loka Reddy, Police Sub-Inspector who has

registered the case, has also deposed that through the

help of station staff he has reduced the complaint in

Kannada language. He has translated the statement given

by PW1 in Hindi. But the same is not endorsed on Exhibit

P1. Even the name of the staff is not disclosed by the IO.

The IO has not cited him as a witness. Therefore, it is

clear that PW1 has not given complaint as per Exhibit P1.

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. PW2-Juna, who is an eye-witnesses, has deposed in

her evidence that she is the witness to the alleged incident

which she has seen through the broken window. But the

same is not stated in the Complaint-Exhibit P1. During the

course of cross-examination of PW2, Exhibit D1 was

confronted. She has clearly admitted that there is no

window. Exhibit P3 is the statement of eye-witnesses

recorded under 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

PW13-IO has deposed in examination-in-chief that he has

submitted request to the Court to record evidence under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The

statement of CW2 was recorded on 22nd June, 2022 as per

Exhibit P20. The Magistrate has recorded the statement of

PW2-Juna on 06th July, 2022, after lapse of about one

month. The IO produced Juna before the Magistrate to

record the statement under Section 164(5) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Though the content of Exhibit P1 does

not reveal as to the broken window, for the first time

before the court while recording Statement under Section

• 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, she has deposed

that she has witnessed the alleged incident through

broken window. But the evidence of PW2 will falsify

Exhibit D1 photo that there is no broken window to the

sheet house in question. Spot mahazar Exhibit P2, dated

08th June, 2022 reveals that there is a broken window to

the room measuring 10 ft x 10 ft. Though the IO has

conducted mahazar on 08th June, 2022, the same is not

placed before the Court. Only at the time of filing charge-

sheet, the IO has produced this document. The IO has not

explained anything as to delay in producing witnesses PW2

before the Magistrate for recording the statement under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The

inordinate delay in recording the statement under the said

section, and the delay in producing spot mahazar will

falsify the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it

is clear that PW2 is not an eye-witness to the incident.

1. With regard to the evidence of victim, the trial Court

has examined this witness as PW15. She has given her

• 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure statement as

under:

"ನನ ಮಗ -ೕ 7ೊಂ%ದು5 ಅವ 'ೆ ಐದು ಜನ ಮಕ@.ದು5
+ಾವ< ಹ Gಾಮs J1tಂ\ ನ12 +ಾನು ನನ PೊPೆ Dಾಗೂ ನನ
uಮVಕ@ಳ ಒQU'ೆ ಇದು5 +ಾನು ಮತು ನನ PೊPೆ ಇಬvರು ಮ+ೆ
7ೆಲಸ ಾ%7ೊಂಡು ಇರು ೇ3ೆ. 'ಾGೆ 7ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವ ವ [ಯು
ನಮ'ೆ gರಪ gತ+ಾ4ರು ಾ+ೆ. ಆತ ನಮV ಕಟUಡದ12wೕ dೕN
ಮ+ೆಯ12 3ಾಸ3ಾ4ರು ಾ+ೆ. ಸದ ವ [ ನನ ಮಗನ +ಾಲೂ@ವGೆ
ವಷ ದ ಮಗ ಾದ ಹ ಾಳನು ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4 ಅವನ dೕN
ಮ+ೆ'ೆ ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4 !ಾ4ಲು Dಾ[7ೊಂ%ರು ಾ+ೆ. ಮ ೊ ಬv
uಮVಗ ಾದ ಶ_ ಳವನು dೕN ಮ+ೆಯ12 3ಾಸ3ಾ4ರುವ ವ [
ಹ ಾಳನು ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4 !ಾ4ಲು Dಾ[7ೊಂ%>ಾ5+ೆ
ಎಂದು -./ದ5 7ಾರಣ +ಾನು ಆತನ dೕN ಮ+ೆ'ೆ Dೋ4 ಅದರ12ದ5
ಸಣF [ಂ%cಂದ +ೋಡ ಾ4 ನನ uಮVಗಳ ಬZೆU ೆ'ೆದು ಉ ಾU
ಮ124/ ಅ ಾ #ಾರ ನ;ೆಸು-ರುವ<ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ?ರುತ>ೆ. +ಾನು
ಅಸDಾಯಕ ಾ4 [ರುg7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4 ನನ uಮVಗಳನು
ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು ಬಂ?ರು ೇ+ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ ಸಂಬಂyಕರ jೊ ೆ
ಚg / z1ೕO {ಾ|ೆ'ೆ ದೂರು pೕ%ರು ೇ+ೆ. ?+ಾಂಕ
07.06.2022 ರಂದು ಈ ಘಟ+ೆ ನ;ೆ?ರುತ>ೆ. ಆದ5 ಂದ ನನ
uಮVಗಳ ೕ ೆ ಅ ಾ #ಾರ ಾ%ದ ವ [ಯ ೕ ೆ ಸೂಕ
7ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ 7ೈ'ೊಳ~!ೇ7ೆಂದು 7ೇ.7ೊಳe~ ೇ+ೆ."
19. The statement given by child-PW15, who is not cited

as witness in the charge-sheet, makes it clear that only at

the instance of her mother, she has deposed as the

• 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

accused committed the offence. In chief-examination

made by the Public Prosecutor, PW15 has deposed as

under:

"ಪ €ೆ : #ಾPಾ.2 pನ'ೆ ಏ+ಾಗ!ೇಕು ?
ಉತರ: Pಾ ಉತ /ರುವ<?ಲ2.

ಪ €ೆ : #ಾPಾ.1 pನ'ೆ ಏ+ಾಗ!ೇಕು ?
ಉತರ: ಅಮV+ಾಗ!ೇಕು.

ಪ €ೆ : ತಂ>ೆ ಎ12>ಾ5Gೆ ?

ಉತರಃ ಇಲ2 ಎಂದು ಉತ /ರು ಾGೆ.

ಪ €ೆ : pೕನು ಏನು ಓದು-ೕRಾ ?

ಉತರ: ಯು.7ೆ.:.

ಪ €ೆ : ಹಂಪಯ 'ೊ ಾ?

ಉ ತರ: 'ೊತು.

ಪ €ೆ : pಮ'ೆ ಪ ಕರಣದ12 ಏನು ೊಂದGೆRಾ4>ೆ?
ಉತರ: Pಾ ಉತ /ರುವ<?ಲ2.

ಪ €ೆ : ಹಂಪಯ ಏನು ೊಂದGೆ ಾ%>ಾ5+ೆ?
ಉತರಃ +ಾನು ಆಟ3ಾಡು-ದ5 ಆಗ ಆತ ನನ'ೆ #ಾಕ ೇN 7ೊಟುU ತಪ<†
ತಪ<† ನ;ೆದು7ೊಂಡ.

ಪ €ೆ : Rಾವ ೕ- ತಪ<† ಾ%ದ?

ಉತರ: ನನ ಬZೆU Jghದ ಮತು ತಪ<† ಾ%>ಾ5+ೆ."
20. In her cross-examination, PW.15 has deposed as

follows:

• 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

"ನನ ಅಕ@ನ Dೆಸರು ಶ_ ಳ ಎಂದು
ಪ €ೆ : Rಾರು Rಾರು ಆಟ3ಾಡು-?5ೕ ?

ಉತರ: +ಾನು, ನನ ಅಕ@ ಮತು ˆ ಯ
ಪ €ೆ : +ಾನು, ನನ ಅಕ@ ಮತು ˆ ಯ €ಾ ೆ'ೆ Dೋಗು-ೕGಾ?
ಉತರ: Dೋಗು->ೆ5ೕ3ೆ
ಪ €ೆ : !ೆಳ'ೆ( 10 ಗಂZೆ'ೆ €ಾ ೆ'ೆ Dೋ4 ಸಂjೆ 4:307ೆ@
€ಾ ೆcಂದ 3ಾಪO ಬರು-ೕGಾ?

ಉತರ: Dೌದು
ಪ €ೆ : ಈ =ಂ>ೆ 7ೋQ 'ೆ ಬಂ>ಾಗ ಕಪ<† 7ೋಟು
Dಾ[7ೊಂಡವರು ಅವರ ಆŠೕ/'ೆ ಕGೆದು7ೊಂಡು Dೋ4ದ5Gಾ?
ಉತರ: Pಾ ಉತ /ರುವ<?ಲ2
ಪ €ೆ : ಹಂಪಯ ನ Dೆಸರು pನ ಅ:‹ ಮತು ಅಮV Dೇ.ದ5 ಂದ
'ೊ ಾcvÀÄ ಎಂದGೆ?

ಉತರ: Pಾ ಉತ /ರುವ<?ಲ2
ಪ €ೆ : ಹಂಪಯ ನನ'ೆ ತಪ<† ಾ%ದ ಎಂದು pನ ಅಮV
Dೇ.ದ5 ಂದ ಆತನ Dೆಸರು Dೇಳe-?5ೕRಾ ಎಂದGೆ?
ಉತರ: Pಾ ಉತ /ರುವ<?ಲ2
ಪ €ೆ : ಹಂಪಯ ಏನು ತಪ<† ಾ%ಲ2 ಎಂದGೆ?
ಉತರ: Pಾ ತಪ<† ಾ%>ಾ5+ೆ
ಪ €ೆ : ನನ ಾc Dೇ.ದ5 ಂದ ಹಂಪಯ ತಪ<† ಾ%>ಾ5+ೆ
ಎಂದು Dೇಳe->ೆ5ೕ+ೆ ಎಂದGೆ?

ಉತರ: Dೌದು
ಪ €ೆ : ಈಗ +ಾ Rಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ>ೆ ಇರುವ ಆGೋˆಯನು
ಇ>ೇ uದಲ !ಾ 'ೆ +ೋಡು->ೆ5ೕ+ೆ ಎಂದGೆ?

• 23 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

ಉತರ: Pಾ Dೌದು ಎಂದು ತ ೆ ಅ ಾ2%/ರು ಾ ೆ
ಪ €ೆ : pಮ'ೆ ತಪ<† ಾ%ದ ವ [ ಈ ಆGೋˆ ಅಲ2 ಎಂದGೆ?
ಉತರ: ಸ ಯಲ2
ಪ €ೆ : ಸದ ಆGೋˆಯನು ನನ ಾc ೋ / ಇ>ೇ ವ [
ತಪ<† ಾ%ದವನು ಎಂದು Dೇಳe ಎಂದು Dೇ.ದ5 ಂದ
Dೇಳe->ೆ5ೕ+ೆ ಎಂದGೆ?

ಉತರ: Dೌದು"
21. Further, PW15 has not deposed in her evidence as to

penetrative sexual assault said to have been committed by

the accused.

1. With regard to medical evidence, the prosecution has

produced Exhibit P6-Medico-legal examination of sexual

violence of the victim, in which it is stated as under:

"Informant- mother, grand mother, Roshini

The victim was lured by the Mr. Hamppaiah by
giving a chocolate and took the victim to a shed
near the victim residence at around 1 pm. The
victim's grandmother Juna saw through the window
of the assailant that he has opened the pants of the
victim and was having sexual intercourse forcefully
then both grandmother and mother ran to the

• 24 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

assailant residence to save the victim , but he ran
away by then. The victim was given bath and
washed the victim clothes after the incident."
23. To substantiate this, the prosecution has examined

PW5-Dr. Kavita Rani. She has deposed in her evidence as

to the injuries found on the victim and also as to issuance

of certificate as per Exhibit P6. PW5 has also deposed as

to Exhibit P7-FSL Report, in which, the result of

examination, is shown as under:

"There is evidence (clinical) suggestive of
forceful peno-vaginal and peno-anal intercourse, by
the physical injuries and genital injuries present."
24. The same is also admitted by PW5. Therefore, it is

crystal clear that there is no medical evidence to prove the

alleged penetrative sexual assault said to have been

committed by the accused.

1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

accused that the accused was not present at the time of

alleged incident and he was working somewhere else. In

• 25 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

this regard, PW11 has deposed that the accused, his elder

brother, elder sister and his brother-in-law were working

in the site between 09.30 p.m. to 06.00 p.m.

1. PW9-Venkatesh has also deposed the same in his

evidence. But this stray admission of PW9 is not sufficient

to come to a conclusion that the accused was not present

at the time alleged incident. The accused has not adduced

any defence evidence in this regard. Hence, the argument

advanced by the accused counsel cannot be accepted.

1. Considering the wounds found on the injured victim

as in Exhibit P6 and evidence of medical officer-PW5 and

the evidence of victim as to the removal of clothes by this

accused, establishes that the accused has committed the

offence of sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the

POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, the prosecution has

proves that the accused has committed the offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act 2012.

• 26 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. On careful examination of the entire materials on

record, I do not find any cogent, clinching, corroborative

or trustworthy evidence to convict the accused for the

offence under Section 376(3) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with 4(2) of POCSO Act.

1. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the

accused that the accused was arrested on 08th June, 2022,

he is in judicial custody for a period of 3 years, 8 months

and 15 days, as on today. Considering the other evidence,

I am of the opinion that the alleged offence attract the

offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative and Point

No.2 in the affirmative.

Regarding Point No.3:

1. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

• 27 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

i) Appeal is allowed in part;

ii) Order on Sentence dated 23rd November,
2024 passed in Spl. CC No.1978 of 2022 by
the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
FTSC-IV at Bengaluru for the offence under Section 3 read with 4(2) of POCSO Act,
2012, is set aside. However, accused is
convicted for the offence under Section 8 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 for a period of three
years, eight months and fifteen days, along
with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one
month;

iii) The accused has already undergone period of
sentence for 3 years 8 months and 15 days.
The accused is entitled for benefit of set-off
under Section 428 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for the period spend from the date
of arrest, i.e. from 08th June, 2022, till date;

iv) The Member Secretary, District Legal
Services Authority, Bangalore Urban is
directed to take necessary steps for disbursal

• 28 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11212 CRL.A No. 577 of 2025 HC-KAR

      of compensation awarded to victim under the
      Victim Compensation Scheme, in view of
      modification of sentence by the trial Court, in
      accordance with law;

v) Registry is directed to send the copy of this
judgment along with conviction warrant to
the jail authorities;

vi) Registry is also directed to send the copy of
the judgment to Member Secretary, District
Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban for
compliance.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE

lnn, KBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44