Karnataka High Court
Subhas S/O Basavantappa Agasimani vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100177 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SUBHAS S/O. BASAVANTAPPA AGASIMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALLANAYAKANAKOPPA-581104,
TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMESH DESAI, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BANKAPUR P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
VINAYAKA DHARWAD BENCH.
BV ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. S.P.P)
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2026.04.24
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
10:13:05 +0530
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DATED 03.01.2020 AND SENTENCE DATED 06.01.2020 IN SPL.S.C.
NO.185/2017 BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT HAVERI, AGAINST THE
APPELLANT HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
-2-
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024
363, 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND SECTION 12 OF THE POCSO ACT AND
SENTENCING THE ACCUSED FOR PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS AND A
FINE OF 10,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO
IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 363 OF IPC AND THE CONVICT IS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND A FINE OF 50,000/- AND IN DEFAULT
TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 MONTHS, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC. FURTHER,
THE CONVICT IS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR 7 MONTHS AND
A FINE OF 2,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO
IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 MONTHS, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 201 OF IPC. THE CONVICT IS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE YEARS AND FINE OF RS.5,000/- AND IN
DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 2
MONTHS, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 12 OF
POCSO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 16.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-3-
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the Amicus Curie for the appellant and also the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent/State.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 03.01.2020 and order on sentence dated 06.01.2020 passed in Spl.SC No.185/2017 by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri (for short, 'Trial Court'), convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and imposing sentence of imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC; sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo imprisonment for five months, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to pay the fine to undergo imprisonment for five months, for the -4- CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC; imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo imprisonment for 2 months, for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 377 of IPC, and hence, the accused prays this Court to set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution while invoking the offences punishable under Sections 363, 377, 302, 201 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act, is that, a charge is made against the accused that on 16.05.2017, at about 04.00 p.m. from the place near Dyamavvana Gudi of Mallanaikanakoppa Village within Bankapur Police limits, the accused induced the deceased Mallikarjuna of giving mutton curry with the knowledge that the said Mallikarjuna was a minor and he kidnapped him in the motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA-19/S-6333, forcibly took him to forest area of Konanakere Village, situated by the side of Rajeev Village Road and committed the aggravated anal -5- CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 penetration and subjected him for sexual harassment and thereafter, the accused with the apprehension that minor would inform his parents or any other person, committed the murder by throttling with an intention to suppress the anal penetration and hid the dead body of the minor and hence, he was arrested and the accused is in judicial custody. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken and the accused did not plead guilty and claims trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P29 and MOs 1 to MO12. On closer of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to 313 statement of Cr.P.C. and the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence and also the material objects, comes to the conclusion that the accused had indulged in committing the offences punishable under Sections 363, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and -6- CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 Section 377 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.
5. The learned Amicus Curie appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and there is no any such motive and hence, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 of IPC do not attract, hence, it is clear that there was no any motive to commit the murder. The trial Court fails to take note of contradictory statements found in the complaint and when the complainant was examined as PW1 and the evidence of PW7 not supports the case of the prosecution and erroneously relied upon the evidence of PW6 and PW7. The counsel would also submit that in order to attract Section 363 of IPC, there are no ingredients and with regard to the accused had indulged in such act of sexual offences, no corroborative piece of evidence is placed before the Court, but the trial Court presumed that the accused has committed the said act. -7-
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024
6. The counsel also vehemently contends that inquest was conducted on 17.05.2017 and so also PM was conducted on 17.05.2017, and though Ex.P26 discloses that cause of death is asphyxia, but no material is placed before the Court that the said act was committed by the accused. The counsel would also submit that last seen theory relied upon by the prosecution is also not consistent and also there is no any proximity to the cause of death, though body was recovered at the instance of the accused at 11.45 p.m., there was a long gap and the sexual assault also not proved. There is no credible evidence and no phone call details are placed before the Court that the accused had indulged in such act.
7. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the evidence of PW6 and PW7 is very clear with regard to the last seen theory and even defence itself has made suggestion to these witnesses admitting the last seen. It is submitted that the evidence of PW6 and PW7 is very consistent and credible and nothing is elicited from the mouth of these two witnesses to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The Addl. SPP would also submit -8- CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 that body was recovered at the instance of the accused, after he made the voluntary statement in terms of Ex.P28 and in the presence of PW3, body was traced, which was shown by the accused and taking the panch witness and police, mahazar was also drawn in terms of Ex.P9. He therefore submits that when there is a discovery at the instance of the accused and that accused only had the knowledge of body as to where it is and it attracts Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Addl. SPP also would vehemently contend that the evidence of the doctor, who conducted PM in terms of Ex.P23 and final opinion was also given in terms of Ex.P26 that cause of death is on account of strangulation and hence, the trial Court has not committed any error. The Addl. SPP also submits that the evidence is very clear that the accused took the deceased on his motorcycle without the consent of the natural guardian and hence, it attracted Section 363 of IPC and there is a corroborative piece of evidence before the Court. The Addl. SPP further contends that the evidence of PW10-Doctor is also very clear that the deceased boy had sustained injuries and the same is noticed by the doctor as external injuries and proved the fact that boy was a minor and -9- CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 it is a case of throttling and it was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and not given any explanation in 313 statement and hence it doesn't requires any interference.
8. In reply to this argument, the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that there is no any chain of circumstances to establish the case against the accused. The counsel for the appellant also relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vaibhav Vs. State of Maharashtra1 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph-23 of the judgment, wherein an observation is made that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant. However, it is not conclusive of the matter. There is no rule of law that absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of the evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of the accused. It is so because the weight of other evidence needs to be seen and if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, motive may not hold relevance. But a complete absence of motive is certainly a circumstance which may weigh in favour of the accused. 1 Crl.A.No.1643/2012, decided on 04.06.2025
- 10 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024
9. The counsel also relies upon another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana2 and brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in Paragraph-12, wherein it is held that the evidence of last seen evidence becomes an extremely important piece of evidence in a case of circumstantial evidence, particularly when there is a close proximity of time between when the accused was last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the body of the deceased, or in this case the time of the death of the deceased. This does not mean that in cases of circumstantial where there is a long gap between the time of last seen and the death of the deceased, the last seen evidence loses its value. It would not, but then a very heavy burden is placed upon the prosecution to prove that during this period of last seen and discovery of the body of the deceased or the time of the death of the deceased, no other person but the accused could have had an access to the deceased. The circumstances of last seen together in the present case by itself cannot form the basis of guilt, referring the Judgment of Anjan Kumra Sarma & Others Vs. State 2 Crl.A.No.530/2022, decided on 04.05.2023
- 11 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 of Assam3. The counsel also contends that in this judgment, the Apex Court also considering the judgment in Malleshappa Vs. State of Karntaka4, took a note that when there is no close proximity between circumstances of last seen together and the approximate time of death, the evidence of last seen becomes weak. In the said judgment, it is also discussed that the other circumstances here is the so-called discovery, and most of these, as we have already discussed, failed to meet the requirement of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and an observation is made that the trial Court as well as the High Court have lost sight of the vital aspect of the matter and both the Courts have relied upon Section 106 of the Act and held that since the accused was last seen with the deceased and he has not been able to give any reasonable explanation in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and came to a conclusion that the same is an additional link and erroneously relied upon Section 106 of Evidence Act.
10. The counsel also relies upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shankar Vs. The State of 3 (2017) 14 SCC 359 4 (2007) 13 SCC 399
- 12 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 Maharashtra5 and brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in Paragraph-18 with regard to the motive is concerned, wherein an observation is made relying upon the judgment of Nandu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh6 wherein it is held that it is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused. Counsel relying upon these judgments would vehemently contend that the trial Court failed to consider the factual aspects.
11. Having heard the learned Amicus Curie for the appellant as well as learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State and also considering both oral and documentary evidence, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
1) Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable Sections 363, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and 5 Crl.A.No.954/2011, decided on 15.03.2023 6 2022 SCC Online SC 1454
- 13 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 whether it requires interference of this Court?
2) What order?
12. Before coming to the conclusion, this Court has to analyze both oral and documentary evidence to weigh the evidence available before the Court.
13. The sum and substance of the factual aspects of the case is that, the accused had taken the victim to a remote place and subjected him for sexual harassment and several offences are invoked against the accused. The trial Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution not proved the case for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 377 of IPC and acquitted the accused, however, convicted the accused for other offences.
14. Now this Court has to consider the law set in motion by considering the complaint which is marked as Ex.P1. The complaint Ex.P1 was given by the father of the victim and in the complaint, it is very clear that when he came to the house at 05.00 p.m., he did not find the deceased and he enquired his wife and wife said that the victim boy went to
- 14 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 the house of Kadappa Siddappa Sambhoji in order to get the mutton curry, but he did not return. Immediately, the complainant went near the house of Kadappa and when the mutton curry was not available, it was informed to the victim and sent back the victim. Later, the complainant met Chandru Yallappa Shettanavar and he told the complainant that the accused took the boy on his motorcycle that he has got mutton curry and went towards the Mundagod Road. It is also the allegation that he used to subject the children for his sexual act and immediately he went in search of his son and he found a person by name Maruti Basappa Mallad and he also informed the complainant that the accused took the victim saying that he is going to Nidagundi and he gave the phone number of the accused and when he made the phone call, he did not pick up the phone call and the complainant went along with others to Nidagundi in search of his son, he did not find his son and once again he made phone call to the accused and the accused informed that he is in Chandapura and on enquiry, the accused revealed that no one accompanied him and went to Chandapura; the complainant did not find his son. Once again the complainant made phone call to the accused
- 15 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 and again the accused informed that he is in Singapura, they went to the said place also but the victim was not there and once again the complainant made a phone call to the accused and enquired, and the accused informed that he is near the house of Kadappa and they went to that place and again Kadappa informed that the accused went to his house and immediately they went near the house of the accused and he was sleeping, on enquiry, the accused informed that his son did not accompany him. Hence, the complaint was lodged against the accused that he might have hidden his son and this complaint was given on 16.05.2017 at 21.15 p.m. The FIR was also registered as per Ex.P2 on 16.05.2017 and FIR was sent and the same was received at 10.45 p.m. on the very same day. The police have apprehended the accused after filing of the complaint.
15. The complainant, who has been examined as PW1, has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his evidence and he says that the accused had revealed that he took the victim boy to Rajeevnagar forest area and subjected him for sexual act and also revealed that he committed the murder
- 16 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 and body was also traced at the instance of the accused. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross- examination, a suggestion was made that when he enquired CW10-Chandru, who only informed that his son was taken in the motorcycle by the accused, but he cannot tell the motorcycle number. This suggestion discloses that the accused had taken the victim in his motorcycle. No doubt, it is elicited that the accused was scolded by the village people when he was looking the girls in an amorous manner. But he admits that except this case, no other case is registered. The suggestion was made that he is falsely deposing that the accused only committed the murder and the same is denied.
16. The other witness is PW3, who is a panch witness for recovery of the body at the instance of the accused and this witness categorically says that on enquiry, the accused revealed that he subjected the boy for sexual act and also committed the murder by strangulation and the accused only took him and also the police in the night to the remote place of forest area and the accused showed the spot and also the dead body. Nicker of the victim was also lying at the spot and
- 17 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 also there was a steel can and only shirt was found on the body and lower portion was naked and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P9 and he had signed the same. In the cross- examination, PW3 admits that they were there in the village on the date of the incident and searched the boy in the village and complaint was given by PW1 and no notice was given to him and CW4 to be panchas and he says that he went to police station and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P9 at the spot and he cannot give description of the spot, but it was at around 11.30 p.m. It is suggested that no such mahazar was drawn and the accused had not shown the dead body, the same was denied.
17. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of last seen witness i.e. PW6. PW6 also in his evidence says that he went to the house of Kadappa Shettannavar to have dinner and while returning after having the food at 04.15 p.m., the accused came in the motorcycle and victim was also there along with him. On enquiry, the accused revealed that he is going to Nidagundi and hence he informed PW1 that the accused only took the victim on motorcycle. When the phone
- 18 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 call was made, the accused did not pick up the phone. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and only answer was elicited that he cannot tell on what date he gave the statement before the police and also he cannot tell the bike number. It is suggested that he is falsely deposing that the accused took the victim towards Nidagundi and also falsely deposing that MO 1 to 3 were seized, the same were denied. It is suggested to this witness that there was a distance to the place of incident and also the place in which the accused took the deceased in the motorcycle. This suggestion itself goes against the accused and the same is also extracted by the trial Court while considering the material on record and that he did not take the victim in his motorcycle was not contraverted by the accused and last seen witness evidence remains. Even the suggestion also suggests the same that the victim was along with the accused on the motorcycle. The evidence of PW3 is very clear with regard to the accused only took the panch witness and also the police to the place where the dead body was there and it is nothing but a discovery at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for the reason that the accused only had the knowledge about where
- 19 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 the dead body was lying, that too in a remote place of forest area.
18. The other evidence of PW7, who is also a last seen witness and he also says that they went to the house of Kadappa and he also attended the arrangement made by the said Kadappa and had the food and when they were standing near Dyamavvana Gudi, the victim came with steel can and at that time, the accused came in the motorcycle and took the victim in his motorcycle, stating that he would get the mutton curry to him and went towards Mundagod road and he informed the same to PW1, when he came and enquired. He further says that the accused was handed over to the police custody and thereafter, the accused took them towards the place where the dead body was there and found the dead body and seized the MOs at the spot. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination and this witness also says that he cannot tell the date of statement given to the police and also he reiterates that when he went near Dyamavvana Gudi, the victim was also coming behind him. But he only admits that while making the statement, he did not mention the same
- 20 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 with the police. The suggestion was made that the accused did not call the victim to get mutton curry and the said suggestion was denied. Having considered the evidence of PW7 also, it is very clear that he had seen the victim as well as the accused and taking the victim in his motorcycle and no any effective cross examination to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
19. The other witness is PW10-Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem. In his evidence, he says that he found bite marks particularly on the lips of the victim and stain over lateral part of left thigh measuring 6 x 2cm tongue shape. The final opinion was kept pending and after receiving the FSL report, he gave the final opinion that cause of death of the deceased was due to respiratory failure as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation and Report is at Ex.P26 and final report is based on Ex.P25. This witness admits that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is incapable of performing sexual intercourse and also admits that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse and he has issued the final opinion pertaining to accused as per Ex.P27 and his signature is also marked. In the cross-examination, suggestion was made that
- 21 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 he recorded the injuries approximately and the same was denied. Another suggestion was made that there is no mentioning of the fact that accused committed the offence, but it has been mentioned that seminal stains are not present and the said suggestion was denied. In the cross examination with regard to the strangulation is concerned, nothing is elicited and the evidence of PW10 remains.
20. The other witness is PW11-Police Inspector, who conducted the investigation and collected material and also drawn the mahazar of the spot shown by the accused in terms of Ex.P9.
21. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, particularly considering documentary evidence of Ex.P1, it is very clear that the persons, who have last seen the accused and also the victim, are found in the complaint Ex.P1 and also the evidence of PW1 is in consonance with Ex.P1. So also, it has to be noted that when the accused was arrested and his voluntary statement was recorded and in terms of the voluntary statement, dead body was recovered at the instance of the panch witness by drawing the mahazar-Ex.P9 and PW3
- 22 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 and PW7 are also very much present at the time of showing the body by the accused. Hence, it is a clear case of discovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused. The last seen witness evidence of PW6 and PW7 is also consistent and this Court already pointed out that even suggestion was made to these witnesses that the accused and deceased were found and the same also considered by the trial Court and hence, other circumstances is also proved, i.e. last seen theory. Apart from that, doctor evidence of PW10 is very clear that it is a case of strangulation and nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of PW10 that it is not the case of strangulation and also with regard to the injuries found in the body was also not disputed in the cross-examination of PW10 and medical evidence shows that it is a case of homicidal.
22. With regard to the motive is concerned, the judgment is relied upon before the Court and also it is settled law that in a case of circumstances, motive is significant and the same is also very clear, subsequent to the judgments referred by the counsel for the appellant, that if any other evidence available before the Court with regard to the
- 23 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 circumstances goes against the accused, absence of motive, though it is a crucial link, and motive alone not becomes the crucial link and the same is discussed in paragraph-18 of the judgment in a case of Shankar (supra). Though this judgment relied upon by the counsel appearing for the appellant, the same goes against the appellant. Moreover, other judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Dinesh Kumar (supra), which was relied upon by the appellant's cousnel, with regard to the proximity to cause of death is concerned, in the case on hand, the victim was missing at 04.00 p.m. and even body was recovered at the instance of the accused at 11.45 p.m. on the same day and before that, they were searching the accused and when the accused was apprehended, he only discovered the same. When such being the case, the very contention that no proximity to cause of death cannot be accepted and there is a discovery of the body at the instance of the accused. No doubt, the counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Vaibhav (supra), wherein at paragraph- 23, it is held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant and further observation is made that however, it is not conclusive of the matter. There is no rule of
- 24 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 law that absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of the accused. The Court has to weigh the other evidence and if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt, motive may not hold relevance. Hence, it is a clear case of confirmation of the judgment of conviction, as the other evidence points out the role of the accused and the same was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and body was recovered at the instance of the accused and last seen witness evidence is also particular, consistent and reliable.
23. Now this Court has to consider the material available on record and no doubt, the evidence of the doctor is very clear that there is no material with regard to sexual act is concerned and the trial Court also took it and acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 377 of IPC, but comes to the erroneous conclusion that Section 12 of POCSO Act attracts. Section 12 of POCSO Act is also with regard to subjecting the minor child for sexual harassment and when the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act
- 25 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 and Section 377 of IPC, ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. However, the other material available before the Court is very clear that the accused took the victim in his motorcycle without the consent of the natural guardian and also the victim boy went to the house of Kadappa to get the mutton curry and when the same was not available, the accused took the victim boy in his motorcycle to the lonely place and committed the murder by strangulation. But did not make any attempt of shifting of dead body to screen the evidence. But he left the dead body in the place itself, where he committed the murder. When such being the case, question of screening the evidence also does not arise and the same is also a remote place. If the offence is committed somewhere else and body was also disposed of for screening the evidence, then Section 201 of IPC attracts, but in the case on hand, Section 201 of IPC does not attract. Hence, the judgment of conviction requires interference to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of POCSO Act as well as under
Section 201 of IPC and the judgment of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 363 and 302 of IPC remains
- 26 -
CRL.A.NO.100177 OF 2024 and it does not require any interference of this Court. Hence, we answer the point No.1 "partly in affirmative".
24. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed in part by acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 201 of IPC.
2. The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 302 of IPC is confirmed.
3. Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Amicus Curie for the able assistance rendered by him in disposal of the matter.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE JTR CT-PA