Victim’s Non-Support Of Prosecution And Lack Of Corroboration Creates High Probability Of Acquittal: Karnataka High Court

On this reasoning, the Court dismissed appeals challenging a trial court judgment acquitting an accused of charges including kidnapping and offences under the POCSO statute.

The Court was hearing appeals filed by the State and a complainant challenging the acquittal recorded by the trial court after a full trial.

A Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed that “In cases under the POCSO Act, where the victim does not support the prosecution and medical evidence does not corroborate the allegations, the case generally faces a high probability of acquittal due to lack of evidence.”

Background

The prosecution's case alleged that the accused had taken the prosecutrix away from lawful guardianship and subjected her to sexual assault. A criminal case was registered, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed invoking provisions of the Penal Code and the POCSO statute.

During the trial, the prosecution examined multiple witnesses and produced documentary and medical evidence. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including proof of minority and proof of sexual assault.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, both the State and the complainant challenged the judgment before the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook a re-appreciation of the evidence in accordance with settled appellate principles governing appeals against acquittal. It reiterated that interference with an acquittal is warranted only when the findings of the trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal, or based on a misreading of evidence.

The Court first assessed the testimony of witnesses who had initiated the complaint and noted that their knowledge was based on what they had been told, rather than on direct observation of the alleged occurrence. Such testimony, it observed, could not independently establish the prosecution's case.

The Bench then evaluated the statement of the prosecutrix and found that certain admissions made during cross-examination were inconsistent with the prosecution’s version of forcible taking or coercion. These admissions, the Court held, assumed significance because they related directly to the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged.

Turning to medical evidence, the Court observed that the medical examination report did not support the allegation of sexual assault and recorded the absence of physical indicators typically associated with such allegations. In criminal trials, especially under special statutes dealing with sexual offences, medical evidence is not always decisive but assumes importance where the prosecutrix’s testimony itself is uncertain or unsupported.

The Court emphasised that a conviction cannot rest on doubtful or inconsistent evidence. Where the prosecutrix’s version is not corroborated, and the medical findings do not lend support, the prosecution fails to discharge the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another significant issue examined by the Court was whether the prosecution had proved that the prosecutrix was a minor. The Bench analysed the documents relied upon for age determination and held that they did not satisfy statutory standards governing proof of age. The entries in school records were based on information provided by parents and were not supported by primary documents such as birth certificates or other legally recognised proof.

The Court reiterated that statutory provisions and precedents prescribe specific methods for age determination, and failure to follow those methods renders the prosecution’s claim regarding minority unreliable.

The Bench also restated the settled law that an appellate court should not lightly overturn an acquittal. Where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail. Since the trial court’s findings were based on a rational appreciation of evidence, the High Court held that there was no ground to interfere.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including proof of minority, proof of taking from lawful guardianship, and proof of sexual assault. It held that the trial court’s reasoning was sound, evidence-based, and legally sustainable.

Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was affirmed.

Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. SR

Appearances

Appellants: Rashmi Jadhav, Additional SPP, Prema Kumar GA

Respondents: Advocate AV Ramakrishna

Click here to read/download Judgment