Karnataka High Court | Sexual Assault on Minor ‘Unpardonable’ | Society Must Be Vigilant Towards Protecting Women and Children From Weaker Sections
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice S. Rachaiah, rejected a criminal appeal for bail in a case involving the abduction, sexual assault, and exploitation of a minor girl. The Court concluded that the gravity of the allegations, which invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, made release inappropriate. Justice Rachaiah observed that sexual assault on a minor by a married man is an unpardonable act requiring strict judicial response, both to uphold the confidence of victims and to deter exploitation of vulnerable children and women
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the mother of the victim on 27 July 2022. According to the complaint, the victim had been instructed to take bath and proceed to school at 9.00 a.m. on the day of the incident. When the girl did not return and could not be located despite extensive search in and around the village, a missing person complaint was filed with the respondent police station. Based on the description provided, the police registered a case as a missing complaint and began investigation.
The proceedings arose from a complaint lodged on 27 July 2022 by the victim’s mother when her daughter failed to return home after being asked to get ready for school. After searching the village without success, she approached the police with a missing complaint. The Shidlaghatta Rural Police registered the case and commenced investigation.
During inquiries, the victim was traced, and her statement was recorded. According to her account, the appellant, a person known to her, forcibly took her while she was near a drainage in the village. She was transported in his vehicle to a mango grove where he allegedly committed sexual assault. Thereafter, she was taken to Venkateshwara Dhaba, where she was compelled to work.
The victim further narrated that the appellant returned to the dhaba about a week later, engaged in sexual intercourse with her again, and received money from the dhaba owner, cited as accused No.2, as an advance for supplying her labour. Eventually, she managed to borrow a mobile phone from a customer at the dhaba and called her cousin, who, with the assistance of police, rescued her. Her statement was then recorded before the Magistrate.
Based on investigation, a charge sheet was filed alleging offences under Sections 201, 323, 363, 366, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 16 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appellant, represented by counsel, submitted that he was innocent and falsely implicated. It was argued that the victim’s statements were inconsistent and that she had previously left home voluntarily on other occasions to work in different places. The defence maintained that the allegations of sexual assault and forced labour were exaggerated and not credible.
On the other hand, the High Court Government Pleader, representing the State, opposed the bail application, stressing that the victim was a minor from a Scheduled Caste community and had been subjected to sexual assault and exploitation. Counsel for the second respondent further argued that the appellant, a 37-year-old married man, had committed a heinous act by inducing the minor, making her work as a labourer, and accepting money from the dhaba owner. Both counsels submitted that the nature of the offence and its impact on the victim warranted rejection of the appeal
The Court recorded the sequence of events and the nature of the allegations made against the appellant. It noted: “the appellant being a married man, aged about 37 years, induced the minor girl and took her into the mango grove and committed sexual assault and thereafter, he took her to Venkateswara Dhaba and forced her to work as a labourer in the said dhaba, which is unpardonable.” The Court further observed that the appellant had “received amount from accused No.2 for having supplied her as a labourer to the said dhaba.”
The Court addressed the argument of the defense regarding the victim’s previous history of eloping and employment at various places. However, the Court recorded: “The act of committing sexual assault on the minor girl being a married man is unpardonable and it has to be viewed strictly not only in order to restore the confidence in the minds of children and women, but also to send a strong signal to the society at large.”
The Bench also took into account the social context of the victim’s background, stating: “It is noticed here that, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is so susceptible to persons like appellant, for the purpose of exploitation. Hence, it is high time to send a strong signal to the society at large to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections of the society.”
In its final order, the Court stated: “In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: - ORDER The Criminal Appeal stands rejected.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Sri Nanjunda Gowda M.R., Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Waheeda M.M., High Court Government Pleader; Sri Siddharth P. Desai, Advocate
Case Title: Sri Chandrappa v. The State of Karnataka and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:31452
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2025
Bench: Justice S Rachaiah
