Karnataka High Court Acquits Father In Child Abuse Case | Finds Wife Tutored Daughter And Built Case To Block Husband’s Exit From India
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice K.S. Hemalekha held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to overturn the trial court's judgment of acquittal. The court directed that the appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused in a case under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code be dismissed, thereby affirming the trial court's conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The case involved allegations of sexual assault against a minor child, reportedly committed by the accused, the father of the child, during the period of April 2010 to June 2012. The complainant, the mother of the child, alleged repeated acts of sexual abuse, culminating in a specific incident on June 13, 2012.
The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of the complainant (PW.4) and the child victim (PW.23), along with medical and forensic evidence. It was alleged that the complainant had initially observed signs of genital discomfort in the victim and upon repeated occurrences, consulted multiple medical professionals and NGOs. This eventually led to the lodging of a formal complaint. The complainant stated that on June 13, 2012, the accused was alone at home with the child and allegedly abused her during that time.
The investigation involved the collection of various materials including clothing, bed linens, and swab samples, and the examination of the victim by doctors from Baptist Hospital and Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital. In total, 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and numerous exhibits and material objects were submitted.
The trial court, in its judgment dated April 19, 2017, had concluded that the evidence pointed to premeditated actions by the complainant and significant inconsistencies in the testimonies. Medical records indicated that the child suffered from a urinary tract infection, and DNA evidence failed to directly link the accused to the alleged acts. The court noted the absence of direct corroborative evidence and questioned the credibility of the key witnesses due to contradictions and the timing of the complaint.
The appellant contended that the trial court erred in dismissing the evidence of credible medical professionals and the victim’s testimony. They argued that the approach to NGOs and psychologists was due to emotional and financial intimidation by the accused and a cautious attempt to verify suspicions before proceeding legally.
Conversely, the defense stated the contradictions in medical findings, the coaching of the victim by the complainant, and the absence of crucial witnesses such as the domestic help who was reportedly present during the alleged incident. They also pointed to discrepancies in the forensic evidence, especially the absence of the victim's DNA on clothing said to be worn at the time of the alleged assault.
The court recorded that "PW.4’s conduct to lodge a report appears prepared and strategically framed." It was further stated that "PW.23 lacked memory of key events, contradicting her own statement, and admitted to being tutored by PW.4."
In assessing the medical evidence, the Bench observed, "No final or conclusive medical report substantiating the allegation of sexual abuse has been presented. Only provisional reports are available, which do not conform to abuse." The judges noted that symptoms such as "presence of E-Coli Bacterial, Erythema, Pustules, itching, and pinworms, are consistent with non-sexual infection and do not prove abuse."
On the forensic front, it was recorded, "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."
The court also remarked, "Failure to produce Geeta, a crucial independent witness, casts a shadow on the prosecution’s intent and creates a material gap in evidence."
Referencing legal principles, the Bench stated, "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."
Upon thorough examination of the evidence presented and having considered the conclusions reached by the trial court, the Division Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The judges held that the behavior of PW.4, the primary complainant, demonstrated a premeditated and strategic intent to file the complaint. The testimony of PW.23, the child victim, lacked reliability and consistency, further compounded by her admission of being coached by her mother.
The court observed that there was no conclusive medical report confirming sexual abuse, and the provisional findings revealed conditions that were medically explainable and not necessarily indicative of assault.
Furthermore, DNA evidence showed the absence of the victim’s genetic material on the very items she was purported to have worn during the incident, which significantly undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The judges also noted the failure to produce the house maid, a key independent witness, which created a material gap in the evidentiary chain.
Based on these factors, the court concluded that the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused was based on sound reasoning.
There existed no justification to overturn or interfere with the order. The court, therefore, passed the following directive:
"Criminal appeal is hereby dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri P.N. Hegde, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, Special Public Prosecutor-II; Sri S. Mahesh, Advocate ,
Case Title: XXX v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Neutral Citation: NC: 2025:KHC:19243-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2017
Bench: Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice K.S. Hemalekha
[Read/Download order]
