'Victim's Evidence Inconsistent, Untrustworthy': Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Accused In POCSO Case

The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order acquitting two men accused of sexually assaulting a girl who was stated to be a minor, observing that the victim's evidence was inconsistent and not trustworthy. The trial court had acquitted the two accused who were earlier booked under Sections 4(Punishment for penetrative sexual assault), 7(Sexual assault), 8(punishment for sexual assault), 11(iii)(sexual harassment of child by showing any object in any form or media for pornographic purposes), 12 (punishment for sexual harassment)POCSO Act and Sections 366(A)(Procuration of minor girl), 376(1) (rape) and 354(A)(1)(i)(2) (sexual harassment) and (D) (stalking) of IPC.A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T referred to the trial court order on reasoning given regarding age of the victim, and observed that no bone ossification test was done to determine the victim's age which was claimed to be 17 years and 6 months. The bench noted that the victim/PW-1 admitted that she is aged about 18 years and after perusing her evidence where she categorically had said that except touching her hand and leg, the accused had left her."...also the Trial Court discussed with regard to 164(5) statement in paragraph No.39, wherein also the victim girl has not stated anything about subjecting her for forcible sexual act and the evidence of P.W.2 is nothing but hearsay i.e., father of the victim. When P.W.1 herself has not stated anything about subjecting her for forcible sexual act, the evidence of P.W.2 will not come to the aid of the prosecution and there is no medical evidence before the Court. When such being the case, question of invoking the offence under Sections 366(A), 376(1) and 354(A)(1)(i)(2) and (D) of IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 4, 7 read with Section 8, 11(iii) read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 does not arise in the absence of cogent evidence before the Court. The evidence of P.W.1-victim girl is inconsistent and the same is not trustworthy, wherein allegation is made against both accused Nos.1 and 2"The bench observed that the evidence before the court was contrary to the allegations against the accused persons even Section 164(5) CrPC statement of the victim was not in respect of subjecting her to a sexual act. "When all these materials are considered by the Trial Court, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal," the court said. Prosecution alleged that on 25.04.2022 the accused No.2, who was acquainted with the minor victim girl, when she was in 9th standard in 2022, on the pretest of loving her, followed and contacted her through mobile and took her in his scooter to a temple. From there he took her to a hotel and touched her hand and leg and had committed sexual assault and harassment on her.The prosecution also alleged that on the same day at about 12.00 p.m. the accused No.1 called her through phone on the pretext that he wanted to talk with her and thereafter induced her to come with him to go to another place and kidnapped her in his motorcycle to a house where he subjected her for forcible sexual intercourse without her consent. The trial court had acquitted the accused and against which the State moved the division bench in appeal. The State contended that the Trial Court erred in relying upon the evidence of the victim in coming to the conclusion that her evidence is inconsistent. It was contended that the girl had stated that her date of birth is 15.10.2004 and the date of incident is 25.04.2022. This shows that the victim was not major at the time of the incident. But, the Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that victim girl was major at the time of incident and hence, the provisions of POCSO Act are not applicable. It was argued that the victim in her examination in chief has stated that accused touched her hands and legs. But, when she was asked about the incident in cross examination, she said that she could not inform the Court about the sexual intercourse committed by the accused No.1 due to shyness and these are the factors which were not taken note of by the Trial Court. The appeal was dismissed. Case title: STATE OF KARNATAKA v/s MANIKANTA @ MANU and OthersCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.800 OF 2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Victim's Evidence Inconsistent, Untrustworthy': Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Accused In POCSO Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags