Karnataka High Court
Mainuddin vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 16 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315
CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200334 OF 2024
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAINUDDIN
S/O RAJAMAHAMMAD @ YAMANUR
AGE: 26 YEARS, R/O SANTE BAZAAR
LINGASUGUR, LINGASUGUR TALUK
RAICHUR DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
LINGASUGUR P.S., RAICHUR DIST
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
S/O JALALA SABHA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O BEHIND JAMIYA MASIDI
LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C (OLD)
U/SEC. 415(2) OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED BY THE III
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315
CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024
HC-KAR
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, SITTING AT
SINDHANUR AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
POCSO ACT SPECIAL CASE NO.5059/2024 AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 366(A), 376(3) POCSO ACT
2012.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.09.2024 passed in Special Case No.5059/2024 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur sitting at Sindhanur (for short "the trial Court").
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are:
The Circle Inspector of Police, Lingasuguru laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 366A, 376 of the IPC and Section 4 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. That on 05.05.2018 at 11:30 a.m., the -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR accused has procured PW3-victim on his motorcycle and took her from Lingasugur to Ilkal and then to Mangalore with an intention that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and further it is alleged that from 05.05.2018 to 01.06.2018 the accused has committed rape on the victim who was under the age of 18 years at Ilkal and Mangalore. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences. After filing charge sheet, case was registered in Special Case No.5059/2022.
4. The accused was enlarged on bail. On hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed the charges for the offence under Section 366A, 376 and Section 4 and 12 of POCSO Act, same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined 18 witnesses as PW1 to PW18. 21 -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P21. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 366A, 376 of the IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 366A of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 376(3) of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under 12 of POCSO Act.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law and records of the case against the principle of natural justice. The victim girl is more than 18 years as on the date of alleged incident. To prove the age of the victim, the respondent police have furnished only school certificate i.e. date of birth certificate issued by the school, SSLC marks card and transfer certificate. Other than that, no other documents are placed on record. On the other hand PW1-father of the victim girl has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that he gave an approximate date of birth of his daughter to the school. From the evidence of PW1 since no other documents are placed on record, the Court below had wrongly come to the conclusion that the victim girl is below the age of 18 years. Further he would submit that according to the case -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR of the prosecution incident took place on 05.05.2018 same is informed to the police on 16.05.2018, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Delay not being explained, creates doubt regarding the version of prosecution. The doctor clearly stated that there is no recent forcible sex committed on the victim girl and final opinion marked at Exhibit P9 clearly shows that absolutely there is no sexual intercourse and opined that there is no forcible sexual intercourse, on the basis of medical report wherein it is mentioned that the victim girl has not sustained any of the injury on the person as well on the private part. Without considering the same, Court below convicted the appellant, which is not sustainable under law. Further, it is submitted that it is the specific defence of the appellant that since the father of the victim girl has arranged the marriage of PW1, for that reason PW1 left the house. Same is admitted in the cross-examination. Absolutely, that there are no materials to prove the alleged offences. However trial Court has convicted the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR accused which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds sought for allowing the appeal.
9. As against this the learned HCGP, Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, would submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and that there are no grounds to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction order on sentence passed by trial Court and sought for dismissal of this appeal.
10. Having heard the arguments on both sides. On perusal of materials 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, 2012 as on the date of commission of offence?
ii. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act?-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR iii. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 366A, IPC and Section 376(3) of IPC?
iv. What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Negative.
Point No.2: Negative.
Point No.3: Negative.
Point No.4: As per final order Regarding point No.1:
12. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the age of the victim-PW3 was below 18 years as on the date of commission of offence. To prove this fact, the prosecution has produced Exhibit P9 School Certificate issued by the Head Master of Amreshwar Girls High School, Lingasugur which reveals that the date of birth of the victim was 06.06.2002. To prove this document, prosecution has -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR examined PW9. She has not deposed anything as to on what basis she has entered the date of birth of the victim in the school admission register. PW.1-Md.Ibrahim the father of the victim, as clearly admitted that there is no document to prove the date of birth of the victim. Further, he has clearly admitted that he gave an approximate date of birth of his daughter to the school. Though the prosecution has not produced the SSLC marks card and transfer certificate at the time of filing charge sheet, the prosecution has produced Exhibit P19 SSLC marks card and Exhibit P20 transfer certificate issued by Amareshwara Girls High School, Lingasugur. The prosecution has not filed any application to produce Exhibits P19 and P20 Xerox copy of the SSLC marks card and transfer certificate, seeking permission to produce these documents. Without filing application, only at the time of recording evidence of PW16, the Investigating Officer, has produced the Exhibit P19 and P20 Xerox copies and the Court has permitted the IO to produce documents and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR marked the same as Exhibits P19 and P20. The copies of Exhibits P19 and P20 are not furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused does not know the contents of Exhibits P19 and P20, without following the procedure, as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court has permitted PW16 to produce the xerox copy of SSLC marks card and TC. Even trial Court has not provided any opportunity to the accused to file objection for production of the xerox copy of SSLC marks card and TC. Since the trial Court has accepted the xerox copies of SSLC marks card and TC, without following procedure, the marking of Exhibits P19 and P20 are not sustainable under law. The authors of documents Exhibits P19 and P20 are not examined by the prosecution. Even the IO has not whispered anything as to how he has collected these documents at the time of evidence and from whom he has collected the same. Hence, the marking of Document Exhibits P19 and P20 are not sustainable under law. The
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR Investigating Officer has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. The IO has also not complied the mandatory provisions of Section 34 of the POCSO Act. The Medical Officer who has examined the victim has also not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 164A of Cr.PC. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution has not placed legal evidence to prove the age of the victim. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police reported in 2023 INSC 626, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the victim was a "Child" as defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012 as on the date of commission of offence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR Regarding Point No.2:
13. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was child as on the date of commission of offence, the question of committing the offence under the penal provision of POCSO Act does not arise. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in Negative.
Regarding Point No.3:
14. With regard to the alleged commission of offence under Section 366A of IPC is concerned, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the accused has committed the said offence. With regard to the offence under Section 376(3) of IPC is concerned, the alleged incident took place on 05.05.2018, the same is informed to the police on 16.05.2018. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint which is not explained by the prosecution. In Exhibit P8, the medical officer-PW8 has written as under:
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR "On local examination of Muskan D/o Md. Ibrahim I am of the opinion that, all the findings are within normal limit which neither confirms nor refutes forceful sexual assault however, final opinion regarding forceful penetration of vagina or anus is reserved. Pending for want of evidence analysis report from RFSL Kalaburagi."
15. Exhibit P.9 is the medical final opinion of the victim. The medical final opinion reveals that after physical examination and RFSL report, PW.8 Dr. Rashmi M.B., has opined that there is no recent forceful sexual act. The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the Additional Magistrate, Lingasugur reveals that the victim and the accused were in love with each other since two years. Only once at Mangalore, the victim and accused have sexual intercourse with consent of each other. While recording statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim has not whispered anything as to the alleged commission of rape under Section 366A of IPC.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR
16. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent convincing, clinching and legal evidence before the Court to convict the accused for the alleged offence under Sections 366A and 376(3) of IPC. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Accordingly, the Trial Court is not justified in convicting the accused for the offences under Section 376(3) and 366A of IPC. Hence, I answer point No.3 in the Negative.
Regarding Point No.4:
17. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed; ii. The judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2024 and order on sentence dated 21.09.2024 in Special Case No.5059/2024 passed by the III Additional District and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3315 CRL.A No. 200334 of 2024 HC-KAR Sessions Judge, Raichur, Sitting at Sindhanur is set aside.
iii. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 366A and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 12 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act;
iv. The bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties, stand cancelled;
v. The fine amount, if any deposited by the appellant/accused, shall be refunded to them on due identification;
vi. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE TIN,RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61 CT-BH