Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice T. Venkatesh Naik dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of two men accused of sexually assaulting a girl stated to be a minor. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant the accused the benefit of doubt and upheld their acquittal. The case arose from allegations that the men had subjected the girl to sexual assault and harassment, attracting offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Indian Penal Code, including charges relating to sexual assault, rape, procuration of a minor and stalking. The Bench found that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and could not be relied upon to sustain a conviction.

The State filed a criminal appeal seeking leave to challenge a judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Udupi, in a case involving allegations of kidnapping, rape, sexual harassment, and offences under the POCSO Act. The prosecution case alleged that the victim girl was a minor and that on the same day, two separate incidents occurred involving two accused persons. It was alleged that the second accused took the victim to a hotel and touched her hands and legs, while the first accused allegedly induced her to accompany him and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse.

Also Read: Armed Forces Tribunal Can Hear Service Officer’s Appeal Against ICC POSH Findings: Supreme Court

Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, the Women Police Station registered a case and filed a charge sheet after investigation. During trial, the prosecution examined twenty-four witnesses and produced documentary and material evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not lead defence evidence.

The Trial Court, upon assessment of the evidence, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim conclusively and that the allegations of sexual assault were not corroborated by consistent oral, medical, or documentary evidence. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal.

The Division Bench examined the record and the reasoning of the Trial Court in detail. The Court observed that “the reasonings given by the Trial Court as regards proving the age of victim girl is concerned” were supported by the evidence on record. It noted that “except medical report, wherein it says that victim was aged 17 years 6 months, no evidence is placed before the Court.”

The Court further recorded that “in a case where there is medical evidence, there must be an ossification test and the same is not done.” It took note of the victim’s own admission and stated that “P.W.1 admits that she is aged about 18 years.”

With regard to the allegations of sexual assault, the Court examined the victim’s testimony and observed that “having perused the evidence of P.W.1… she categorically says that, except touching her hand and leg, not made anything and thereafter, he left her.” The Court also referred to the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. and recorded that “the victim girl has not stated anything about subjecting her for forcible sexual act.”

The Bench further observed that “the evidence of P.W.2 is nothing but hearsay i.e., father of the victim.” It noted that “when P.W.1 herself has not stated anything about subjecting her for forcible sexual act, the evidence of P.W.2 will not come to the aid of the prosecution.”

Assessing the overall material, the Court stated that “the evidence of P.W.1-victim girl is inconsistent and the same is not trustworthy.” The Court recorded that “even Section 164(5) statement is also not in respect of subjecting her for sexual act.”

On this basis, the Bench concluded that “question of invoking the offence under Sections 366(A), 376(1) and 354(A)(1)(i)(2) and (D) of IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 4, 7 read with Section 8, 11(iii) read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 does not arise in the absence of cogent evidence before the Court.”

Also Read: Benefit From Spouse’s Pre-Election Leasehold Auction Cannot Attract Councillor Disqualification: Karnataka High Court Quashes Belagavi Councillors’ Disqualification Orders

The Court directed that “we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. The criminal appeal is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Smt. Rashmi Patel, High Court Government Pleader

For the Respondents: Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, Advocate, Sri Tejas N., Advocate, Sri Sachin G., Advocate, Smt. Renuka Devi, Advocate.

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Manikanta @ Manu & Others

Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:4824-DB

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 2025

Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh, Justice Venkatesh Naik T