Report Appears Prepared & Strategically Framed: Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Father Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Minor Child
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the mother's Appeal against the Judgment of acquittal of the father by the Trial Court.
The Karnataka High Court upheld the acquittal of a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor child, noting that the mother's report appeared strategically framed as the child admitted to being tutored by the mother.
The Court dismissed an Appeal against the Judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court. The Appeal, filed by the first informant (mother), sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the Respondent (father) for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 of the IPC.
A Division Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice KS Hemalekha held, “Her testimony raises a serious doubt about reliability and credibility and her statements appear to be inconsistent and lacking coherence-she recalls events unrelated to the complaint (example vomiting salad, being hit with the stick) and fails to recall parts of early childhood, including her school, friends or travels. Importantly, she admitted being coached by her mother (PW.4), with promises of chocolate and picnic in exchange for giving certain answers in Court. This testimony supports the arguments of the accused that tutored or influenced testimony significantly undermined the prosecution’s case, especially since the victim’s clear recollection of the core allegation is absent.”
Advocate P.N. Hegde appeared for the Appellant, while SPP Vijaya Kumar Majage represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The first informant (mother of the victim girl) had alleged that the Respondent, her husband, committed sexual assault on their minor child when the child was 3 years and 10 months old.
The Trial Court held that the case stemmed from a misunderstanding between husband and wife. It noted that the mother, instead of seeking immediate medical treatment for the victim, first approached an NGO and then a doctor. The doctor who examined the child, clearly deposed that the child was suffering from bacterial infection.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “The Courts have time and again held that between “may be true” and “must be true”, there is a long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned as a convict. Thus, on examining the testimony of witnesses and the material evidence, we hold that PW.4’s conduct to lodge a report appears prepared and strategically framed. PW.23 lacked memory of key events, contradicting her own statement, admitted of being tutored by PW.4. The non-examination of the material witnesses raises a reasonable doubt about the suppression of the key evidence.”
The Court reiterated Supreme Court’s decision in Sham Singh v. State of Haryana (2018), which emphasised that “testimony of the victim in sexual offence cases must be treated with utmost seriousness and can form the sole basis for conviction if found credible and consistent.” The decision recognised that “delay in lodging a complaint and lack of corroborative medical evidence should not weaken prosecution’s case where the victim’s statement is natural, truthful and inspires confidence.”
The Bench remarked, “No final or conclusive medical report substantiating the allegation of sexual abuse. Only provisional reports are available, non conforming abuse. Presence of E-Coli Bacterial, Erythema, Pustules, itching, and pinworms, such symptoms are consistent with non-sexual infection and do not prove abuse. There is no medical evidence of hymen condition, doctors including Roshini P. Rao (PW.17) confirms that hymen ruptures are caused by non-sexual factors (example hygiene, physical activities). Psychological report based on third party interviews (not examined) and PW.5 based her findings on her drawings Ex.P.6 not forensic evaluation. DNA of accused found on clothes and bed sheets, but on items directly linking to abuse (that is internal swabs), victim’s DNA was not found on most relevant materials. In view of the totality of medical, psychological and testimonial evidence, we find that the prosecution has failed to appreciate the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused and we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the trial court..”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: S v. State Of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:19243-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate P.N. Hegde
Respondents: SPP Vijaya Kumar Majage; Advocates S. Mahesh
