Karnataka High Court
Tippanna Kavali vs The State And Anr on 17 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200129 OF 2024
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
TIPPANNA KAVALI
S/O BHIMAPPA KAVALI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O KYATNAL VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585319.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRIRAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WADGERA POLICE STATION,
YADGIRI DISTRICT,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA NOW REPRESENTED BY
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
ADDL. S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
KARNATAKA
2. BALAPPA
S/O CHANDRAMAPPA CHIGANOOR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O KYATNAL VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585319.
(FATHER OF THE VICTIM)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
R-2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494
CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN SP C (POCSO) 84/2020 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI IN
SPL C (POCSO) 84/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.
366, 376(2)(N), 376(3) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND U/S.
4(2), 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.
80/2020 OF WADAGERA POLICE STATION (YADGIRI DISTRICT)
AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 29.04.2024 IMPOSED UPON THE
APPELLANT / ACCUSED NO.1 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The accused/appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2024 and order on sentence dated 02.05.2024 passed in Special Case (POCSO) No.84/2020 by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri (for short "the trial Court").
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that: -3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR Wadagera Police submitted the chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO Act').
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was in love with the daughter of CW.1, who was a minor and by saying that he will marry his daughter, he had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. On 09.07.2020 at about 11.30 p.m., the accused abducted the victim/CW.2 from Kyatnal village and went to Bengaluruand stayed in a rented house belongs to CW.6 situated at Chowdeshwari layout, Kereguddadahalli of Bengaluru North and had sexual intercourse with her. Thus, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.
5. After filing the chargesheet, the case was registered against the accused in Special Case (POCSO) -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR No.84/2020. The accused was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, he was released on bail on 09.11.2023.
6. Upon hearing on charges, the Trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused. The accused, having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, in all, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses as, PW.1 to PW.18, twenty-nine documents were marked as Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P.29 and no material objects were marked. On closure of evidence on the prosecution side, the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating circumstances. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC and Sections4(2) and 6 of the POCSO and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable underSection 376(3) of the IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable under Sections4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment is erroneous and as such he has slipped into an error and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice. The victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. As per the complaint, the victim was abducted on 09.07.2020 by the appellant -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR and the complaint came to be lodged on 15.07.2020. The delay in lodging the complaint is not at all explained by the prosecution. PW.3, the mother of the victim has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of the evidence of PW.5, without there being any corroborative material on record. The same has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant had taken the victim to the house of PW.6 at Bengaluru and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. However, it is worth to note that PW.6 has turned hostile to the prosecution case. Under such circumstances, the very allegation of the prosecution that the appellant had abducted the victim and had forcible sexual intercourse with her, stands falsified. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and prays to allow this appeal. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, would submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and sought for dismissal of this appeal.
13. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim was child as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act as on the date of commission of offence?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record?
(iii) What order?-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR Point No.1:
14. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of commission of offence, the age of the victim was 17 years. To substantiate the same, the prosecution has produced Exhibit P.21-letter addressed by the Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, Kyatnal to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadagera Police Station, in which it is stated that the date of birth of the victim is 15.06.2003. The Headmaster, Sharanappa Sabanna Bagali examined as PW.14. He has deposed in his evidence that on 15.07.2020, Wadagera Police requested him to issue birth certificate of the victim and on 04.08.2020, he has examined the school documents. On the basis of school documents, he has issued this letter Exhibit P.21 stating that the date of birth of the victim is 15.06.2003.
15. In Ex.P.18, the Medico-legal Examination Report of Sexual Violence, in which the age of the victim is shown
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR as 17 years. The PW.13, Dr. Aasha Anwar has not deposed in her evidence as to the age of the victim.
16. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not produced the birth certificate or matriculation certificate or ossification certificate as per the Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the JJ Act'), which are required to prove the age of the victim. The Investigating Officer has not whispered anything as to the compliance of Section 34 of POCSO Act. The Medical Officer, PW.13 has not stated anything as to the compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 164A of the Cr.P.C. Exhibit P.21 is not an admission register extract. This is only a correspondence, i.e. letter addressed by the Headmaster to the Sub-Inspector of Police. This document cannot be considered as a certified copy of the admission register extract. PW.14 has not whispered anything as to on what basis the concerned school authorities have entered the date of birth of the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR victim as 15.06.2003. In the absence of aforesaid material piece of evidence, it is not safe to come to the conclusion that the date of birth of the victim is 15.06.2023 as shown in Exhibit P.21. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any credible and legal evidence to prove the age of the victim. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
Point No.2:
17. With regard to the offences punishable under Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act are concerned, when the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was "child" as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, the question of committing the offences under the penal provisions of the POCSO Act does not arise.
18. With regard to the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC are
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR concerned, the prosecution has examined PW.1 victim. She has specifically stated in her evidence that she does not know the accused and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even in her cross-examination made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor after treating her as hostile witness, she has categorically denied the suggestions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The victim has deposed that she has not given any statement under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C. However, the prosecution has produced the said statement, which is marked as Exhibit P.6. Even in the statement recorded under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C., the victim has not whispered anything as to the accusation made against the accused.
19. PW.2-father of the victim has deposed that about 2½ years back, the accused took PW.1/victim to Bengaluru. Hence, he lodged a complaint to the police against the appellant as per Exhibit P.9 and the police have conducted the Mahazar as per Exhibit P.10. After one
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR week from the date of filing the complaint, the police have traced her daughter. Except this, he has not deposed anything against the accused.
20. PW.3-mother of the victim, was completely hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even in her cross- examination conducted by the Special Public Prosecutor, she has categorically denied the statements said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which are marked as Exhibits P11 and P12.
21. PW.4-grandmother of the victim, is a hearsay witness.
22. PW.5-Hanumanthraya Gowda, has deposed in his evidence that about two and a half years ago, at around 12:30 a.m., when he had gone to answer nature's call, the accused kidnapped the victim, and thereafter, her parents lodged a complaint with the police. Subsequently, he came to know that the accused had committed rape on the victim.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR
23. PW.6--Abdul Rahim, has not supported the case of the prosecution.
24. PW.7--Khaja Husain, PW.8--Basuraj Bagappa, PW.9--Ranganna Saibanna, PW.10--Devanna Kamanna, PW.11--Ningappa Heikkalappa, and PW.12--Siddhappa Anandappa have not supported the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
25. PW.13-Dr. Asha Anwar, has deposed in her evidence regarding the examination of the victim and the issuance of certificate Exhibit P18.
26. PW.14-Sharanappa Sabanna Bagli, the Headmaster, has deposed regarding the issuance of certificate Exhibit P21.
27. PW.15--Sidhraj Shivappa Baluji, PW.16-- Raghuvendra Pratap Reddy, PW.17--Sharana Gauda Malakindrayan Yamananavar, and PW.18--Soumshekara
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR Shanmukappa, being police officials, have deposed regarding their respective investigation.
28. All the material witnesses, including the victim and the parents of the victim, have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is absolutely no evidence to convict the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Nevertheless, the trial Court has convicted the accused without any evidence, which is not sustainable in law. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.2 in the Affirmative. Point No.3:
29. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2494 CRL.A No. 200129 of 2024 HC-KAR ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir, in Criminal Special Case No. 84/2020, dated 29.04.2024, is hereby set aside.
iii. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), and 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
iv. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount if any deposited, to the accused. v. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records (TCR) to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSP/TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT: SI