MANU/KA/6032/2022

Equivalent Citation: ILR 2023 KARNATAKA 110, 2022:KHC -D:9077-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 100536 of 2021 (A-)
Decided On: 01.09.2022
Appellants: State of Karnataka Vs. Respondent: Mathru Sateri Gurav
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.M. Shyam Prasad and G. Basavaraja, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.M. Banakar, Addl. SPP
For Respondents/Defendant: Vaishali K. Kaladagi, Advocate
JUDGMENT
G. Basavaraja, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated
03/03/2020 passed by the Learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in
S.C. No. 157/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal
Code(for Short 'IPC') and Sections. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the 'POCSO Act'), the appellant-State of Karnataka has
preferred this appeal to grant leave to appeal as provided under Section 378(1) (3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') inter alia challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent-accused.
2 . The facts as per prosecution case are that the complainant and the victim are
permanent residents of Jainkoppa village of Khanapur taluka. The young girl came
home on January 5, 2018, at around 17.30, left her school bag there, and then
proceeded to play with her friends near her school. The accused respondent called
the victim girl by making hand motions while she was playing with her friends in
Anganawadi ground. When she came there, the accused threatened CWs.14 to 17 and
made them flee away before taking the victim girl away from the Anganawadi school.
The accused /respondent then placed the victim girl on the ground, removed her
undergarments, gagged her mouth to stop her from yelling, conducted a sexual
assault, and criminally intimidated the victim girl to not disclose the same to anyone.
Therefore, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 506,
and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The Complainant, mother of the victim girl
CW.1-Meenakshi Vittal Takkekar, had lodged the complaint. Upon receipt of the
complaint, the police registered the case in Crime No. 13/2018 offenses punishable
under Section 376, 506 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and submitted FIR to
the Court on 10/01/2018 at 4.00 A.M. The accused was produced before the learned
Magistrate on the same day and was remanded to judicial custody. The remand was
extended from time to time till the disposal of the case. After filing the charge sheet,
the Court has taken cognizance of the commission of the alleged offenses, and the
case was registered in SC. No. 157/2018. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the
charges against the accused for the alleged commission of offenses. The accused has
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as

08-05-2024 (Page 1 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University

PWs. 1 to 3 and marked five material objects as M.Os.1 to 5. On the closure of the
prosecution side evidence, the accused is questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
The accused has denied the incriminating substances put to him, but he has not
chosen to adduce any defense evidence on his behalf. On hearing the arguments of
both sides, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for commission of the
offences punishable under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and u/s .376 of IPC,
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Feeling
aggrieved by the acquittal judgment, the appellant-State has preferred this appeal.
4 . The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor forcefully submits that the trial
court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has also not
considered the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and when the prosecution has
proved the case against the accused for the commission of the offences punishable
under Section 506 of IPC, the trial Court ought to have considered the provisions of
Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and convicted the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and also Section 376 of IPC and
hence, he sought to allow the appeal.
5 . Per contra, Miss. Vaishali K Kaladagi, Amicus Curiae, submits that prima facia
there is no evidence against the accused for the commission of the alleged offenses.
The sessions judge has followed the principles of appreciation of evidence, while
appreciating the credibility of the witnesses, in acquitting the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and also Section 376 of IPC.
But the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the commission of the
offense punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Learned Amicus Curie has made out the
discrepancies and inconsistent statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and
also in the evidence of the victim before the Court. Furthermore, she submits that the
trial Court has clearly observed while recording the victim's evidence that victim was
unable to understand the things and thus no oath was administered under oath Act;
whereas, the learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure before recording
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has failed to inquire
about the victim, whether she is capable of understanding the things or not, before
recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The competence of the victim
was not tested by the learned magistrate by putting any questions to the victim, but
the said procedure was followed by the learned Sessions Judge while recording the
statement of the witness on oath. There was inconsistency in the evidence of PW.2
and the statement of this witness recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Therefore,
there is absolutely no evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Learned
Amicus Curie seeks for dismissal of the appeal and she also seeks for acquittal of the
accused punishable under Section 506 of IPC .
6 . On hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court has to examine whether the prosecution has
made out a case to allow this appeal and convict the accused for the offences for
which the charges are framed as against just the conviction passed by the trial Court
for the commission of offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC.
7 . The genesis of the prosecution lies in the complaint lodged by complainant
PW1.The complainant and the victim are permanent residents of Jainkoppa village of
Khanapur taluka, On 05/01/2018 at about 17.30 hours, the victim girl returned home
from School, kept her school bag at home, and left to play near school with friends.
While she was playing in company with her friends on Anganawadi ground, the
respondent-accused called the victim girl to come to him by means of making hand
gestures. When she came there, the accused threatened CWs.14 to 17 and made

08-05-2024 (Page 2 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University

them flee away before taking the victim girl away from the Anganawadi school. Then
the respondent-accused laid her on the ground, took off her undergarments, gagged
her mouth from screaming , sexually assaulted against her will, and criminally
intimidated/threatened the victim girl ,to not disclose the same to anyone.
8 . Smt. Meenakshi Vittal Takkekar-Complainant-CW.1, who is the mother of the
victim, is examined as PW.1.She has clearly deposed that CW.8 is her daughter, the
accused has not committed offences as alleged in the complaint-Ex.P.1 and she does
not know the contents of Ex.P.1. She also denied further statements said to have
been recorded by the police as per Ex.P.3.This witness was treated as a hostile
witness and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and during her cross-
examination also the prosecution did not elicit any favourable answer from her to
prove the contents of EX.Ps.1 and 3.
9. The victim girl is examined as PW.2. She has deposed in her evidence that PW.1 is
her mother. At the time of the alleged incident, she was studying in her 4th standard.
She is acquainted with the accused and unaware of her date of birth. On Friday 5th
January 2018,when she was standing alone near the school, after school hours, the
two boys came nearer to her, fastened her hand and took her to the accused. The
accused then took the victim to the restroom, which was located at the back of the
school. At that point, the accused removed the victim's undergarments and
threatened to throw her into the river if she disclosed this act to her mother, at which
point the victim was told to go home. The PW.2 has not deposed as to the alleged
commission of the offence of rape.
10. The Apex court has elaborately laid down the principles to be followed by the
Appellate court in para 69 and 70 of the decision in Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, MANU/SC/3223/2008 : (2008)10 SCC 450,which is as under:
(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and to come to its own
conclusion.
(ii) The appellate court can also review the trial court's conclusion with
respect to both facts and law.
(iii) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the
appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent
and adequate reasons may set aside the judgment of acquittal.
(iv) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are
"compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly
unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference.
(v) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material
evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of
ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision
of the trial court depending on the materials placed.
11. Keeping in mind the above said principles for appreciation , The PW.1 the mother
of the victim and complainant, has not deposed anything as to the alleged criminal
intimidation as alleged by the prosecution. Now we have to analyse the evidence of
PW.2. PW.2 has deposed that on the alleged date of the incident when she was
standing alone near the school after school when, two boys approached and grabbed
her hand and took her to the accused. The accused then took the victim to the
restroom, which was located near the backside of the school. There, the accused

08-05-2024 (Page 3 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University

removed the victim's underwear. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement
of PW.2 on 20/2/2019 before recording the evidence of PW.1. The learned Sessions
Judge has come to the conclusion that this victim has not properly answered the
question posed to her. Hence, he has not given an oath to this witness, who is below
the age of 12 years. In order to appreciate the credibility of victim it is better to
understand the procedure for recording the statement of a child victim and the effect
of a defective procedure.
12. A statement in general is defined as a clear and definite expression of something
in speech or writing a formal account of facts or events especially one given to the
police or in court. But to record the statement of victim child the procedure is laid
down by the Apex court in State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna
alias Tarkari Shivanna : [MANU/SC/0400/2014 : 2014-2-L.W. (Crl.) 441 : (2014) 8
SCC 913].The Supreme Court has issued certain directions in exercise of powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to be followed and issued interim
directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Stations-in Charge in the entire
country to follow the directions. It mandatory for the investigating officer to record
the statement of the child victim under section 164(5) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
and The POCSO Act, 2012 during investigation. whatever the Supreme Court's
direction has stated in Shivanna (supra), would apply in all it's force for investigation
under the POCSO Act as well, especially in the light of Section 25 of the POCSO Act
which reads as follows:
"25. Recording of statement of a child by Magistrate:
(1) If the statement of the child is being recorded under Section 164
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (herein referred
to as the Code), the Magistrate recording such statement shall,
notwithstanding anything contained therein, record the statement as
spoken by the child:
Provided that the provisions contained in the first proviso to
sub-section (1) of section 164 of the Code shall, so far it
permits the presence of the advocate of the accused shall
not apply in this case.
(2) The Magistrate shall provide to the child and his parents or his
representative, a copy of the document specified under Section 207
of the Code, upon the final report being filed by the police under
section 173 of that Code."
13. The procedure to record the statement of child victim is branched as follows for
better understanding: 1. Application for examination of witness 2. Ordering of
Summons/Appearance 3. Competency of the child victim to depose evidence 4.
Examination of child victim 5. Procedure After recording the statement. In
Murugasamy v. State-MANU/TN/3153/2017 : 2017 (4) ML J (CRL) 129 The Hon'ble
High Court of Madras has laid down the procedure for recording of Statement under
Sec.164 of Cr.P.C in Para 97 is here as follows:
(vi) a. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim/witness:
(vii) - A statement of a witness/victim can be recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. only at the instance of the Investigating Officer of the
case.
(viii) - It is not necessary for the Investigating Officer to approach

08-05-2024 (Page 4 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University

 the CMM/CJM with an application for nominating a Magistrate to
record the statement of a witness/victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
(ix) - A Magistrate, whether he has got jurisdiction or not, to inquire
into or try the case, can record the statement of a witness/victim
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on the request of the Investigating Officer
of the case.
(x) - The Presiding Officer of a Special Court which has been
empowered to take cognizance of an offence without there being a
need for committal, may also record the statement of a
witness/victim under Section 164 Cr P.C. on the request of the
Investigating Officer.
(xi) - After recording the statement of a witness/victim under Section
164 Cr.P.C. the Judge/Magistrate shall arrange to take two
photocopies of such statement, under his direct supervision and
certify the same as true copies.
(xii) - He shall furnish one such certified photocopy of the statement
to the Investigating Officer free of cost, immediately, with a specific
direction to the latter to use it only for the purpose of investigation
and not to make its contents public, until the investigation is
completed and final report filed.
(xiii) - The other certified photocopy of such statement shall be kept
in a sealed cover in the safe custody of the Judge/Magistrate.
(xiv) - If the Magistrate who had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement
is not the jurisdictional Magistrate, he shall send the original
statement to the jurisdictional Court, either through a special
messenger or by registered post with acknowledgment due.
(xv) __ If the Judge/Magistrate who had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C.
statement is himself the jurisdictional Magistrate, he shall keep the
original of the statement in the case records.
14. In the instant case, on 23/12/2019 the Session judge has recorded the evidence
the of PW.2 in the presence of her mother-PW.1, after putting few preliminary
questions in order to test the competency of the victim child. The evidence of PW.1 is
inconsistent with the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which is marked as
Ex.P.4. The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is recorded by the learned
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur on 12/01/2018 in the presence of her
mother PW.1, wherein the age of the victim is shown as nine years. In order to
satisfy whether the child is competent to give rationale answers to questions put to
the child on the facts. The learned Magistrate has not inquired about this witness
before recording her statement whether this witness is capable of giving a statement
or not. The learned Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory provision of the
Oath Act before recording the statement of a witness who is below the age of 12
years. The evidence of PW.2 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge discloses that
the victim is unable to understand things and oath was not administered to the
victim. In order to resolve the above legal tangle, let us refer to the proviso to
Section 4 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1969, which reads as under:
(xvi) Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age,
and the Court or person having authority to examine such witness is of

08-05-2024 (Page 5 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University

 opinion that though he understands the duty of speaking the truth he does
not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the foregoing provisions
of this section and the provisions of S.6 shall not apply to such witness, but
in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render
inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of
the witness to state the truth.
The said proviso to Section 4 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1969, should be read
along with Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Competency of the
child victim to depose evidence need to be tested under Section 118
IEA,1872. This voir dire test to be done before the recording of the statement
of the child. This summary inquiry is to satisfy that the child witness is
competent to give the statement. If the child is unable to give rational
answers, the court may proceed to record her statement giving the said
observation and record her statement without administering the Oath.
(xvii) Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
(xviii) 118. Who may testify.--All persons shall be competent to testify
unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the
questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by
tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any
other cause of the same kind.
(xix) Explanation.--A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is
prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and
giving rational answers to them.
1 5 . Ongoing through the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Rameshwar,
S/o.Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in MANU/SC/0036/1951 : AIR
1952 SC 54,it is held that an omission to administer, an oath, even to an adult, goes
only to the credibility of the witness and not his competency. We have examined the
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., this witness stated that on
01/05/2018, she was playing with her friends near her house when the accused came
and took her to the vacant back side of her house. Then, he removed her underwear,
fell on her, and threatened to throw her into the river if she disclosed this act to her
mother, at which point she screamed, the aunty who she didn't know the name of but
was her neighbor arrived at the time. The accused fled the scene at that point, and
Aunt took her home. She didn't say anything to her mother on the day of the alleged
occurrence because she was sick with a stomachache, but on Saturday, she told her
mother about it. This statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is
inconsistent with the evidence of victim/PW.2 and the statement recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge, this will create reasonable doubt about the alleged incident.
we can disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, because her evidence, in our considered
view, fails to inspire the fullest confidence of this Court. Nothing has been brought
on record by the prosecution papers and the evidence to believe the credibility P.W.2.
16. The investigating officer has not offered any explanation regarding the delay in
filing the complaint. PW.1-mother of the victim has not whispered anything regarding
the delay in filing the complaint and even she has not supported the case of the
prosecution. If the alleged incident occurred as claimed by the prosecution, PW.1, the
victim's mother, would have filed a complaint on the same day that her aunt arrived
with her daughter PW.2 on the date of the incident. Though the victim has given a
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate that, after the
incident, one aunt came and took her to the home, the investigating officer has not

08-05-2024 (Page 6 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University

taken any statement from that aunt and also has not given a reason for not
examining that aunt, who is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of
PW1, which is even otherwise marred by embellishments and inter se inconsistencies
with the evidence of PW2 is too shaky and fragile to be the basis of conviction.
Though there is no legal and acceptable evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has
convicted the accused for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under
Section 506 of IPC which is not sustainable in law.
1 7 . It is relevant to discuss the scope of sec.35 of the POCSO ACT, in order to
discuss the credibility of the child victim. The POCSO Act being a special legislation,
over-rides the general legislation and combination of both substantive law as well as
procedural law, can say it's a complete package . Substantive criminal offences have
been created under various provisions of the POCSO Act and the manner in which the
offences to be tried i.e., the procedure to be followed is also provided for under the
POCSO Act. Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code i.e. Cr.P.C., and Sections 25 and
26 of the POCSO Act says regarding the recording of confessions and statements by
any Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate during an investigation and Section 35 of the
POCSO Act deals with recording of evidence of the child and disposal of the case. A
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 is a public document within the
meaning of Section 74(iii) of the Evidence Act as held by a Full Bench of this Court in
State of Madras v. Krishnan [MANU/TN/0163/1961 : AIR 1961 Madras 92]. The
original of the statement, which would form part and parcel of the Court records, is a
primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act for proving the fact that the
said witness had appeared before the Magistrate on the date found thereon and had
given a statement, but, it does not prove the veracity of its contents. It can be
observed that a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is during the course of
investigation or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the trial. But,
the evidence recorded before the Special Court under Section 35 of the POCSO Act is
during the course of the trial. The two cannot be equated and neither are they on the
same plane, hence the recording of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. being
prior to the commencement of the trial, it cannot be considered to be evidence under
sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the POCSO Act. During 164 statement the victim has
deposed as to the act of threatening by the accused and nothing as to the same in the
evidence.
1 8 . Although, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Shivanna @
Tarakari Shivanna to contend that the statements made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
have to be construed as substantive evidence, we do not think that the said
contention can be accepted in view of the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to above and particularly the latest judgment in Somasundaram @ Somu
wherein the earlier judgments on the point have been considered. We have also
already noted, evidence stricto sensu is what is recorded by the Special Court before
itself and cannot be equated with the statement of the victim under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. It is well known principle of law that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
cannot be treated as substantive evidence of the facts stated. Such a statement can
be used to discredit the evidence of the witness, but not for any other purpose. It
was also observed that Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., can be relied upon for the purpose of
corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal Court or even to
contradict the same. As the defense had no opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such statements
cannot be treated as substantive evidence, vide CCE vs. Duncan Agro Industries
Limited, [MANU/SC/0486/2000 : (2000) 7 SCC 53].
1 9 . In this regard Hon'ble Division bench of this Hon'ble High Court in

08-05-2024 (Page 7 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University

MANU/KA/1900/2021 has held "the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
made in the course of investigation by the victim child, cannot be considered as
evidence recorded under Section 35 of the POCSO Act." Thus, the learned Sessions
Judge has properly appreciated the evidence of material witnesses PW.1 and 2 and
come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of
the POCSO Act. On going through the decisions in (i) Khem Ram Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh, MANU/SC/1406/2017 : (2018) 1 SCC 202 (ii) Raja Vs. State of
Karnataka, MANU/SC/1287/2016 : (2016) 10 SCC 506, and the evidence in entirety,
we are of the considered opinion that, there is no need of interference with the
impugned judgment of acquittal.
20. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC is concerned,
the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of PW.2 and has come to
the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the alleged commission of an offence
punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, as imposed a sentence of 110 days , period
in which the accused had undergone judicial custody from 10/01/2018 to 02/05/2018
and had set-off the period of sentence under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused has
not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of sentence punishable
under Section 506 of IPC.
2 1 . An appeal as an instrument of interest of justice, to meet the justice, it is
extremely unsafe and hazardous to base the conviction for the alleged minor offence
,based only on the child/victim evidence on record, when the accused is already been
exonerated for alleged major offences, moreover when the competence of PW2 and
credibility of the witnesses are in doubt ,also when entire prosecution papers raise a
question as to the happening of alleged offence, the Sessions Judge ought not have
convicted the accused, who was 60 years old at the time of alleged incident. The best
possible evidence is not brought by the prosecution and even the learned Sessions
Judge has failed to observe the fact of link between the major offences and the
alleged minor offence. Offence u/s. 506 IPC, could only happen, if the alleged
incident is proved by the witnesses of the prosecution. The learned Session judge has
convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506 of
IPC, when the complaint Ex.p1 ,itself is not proved , as the complainant PW.1, has
turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution. The appellate court while
appreciating the evidence in toto has to consider the probability of happening of the
incident, when the material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. It
is also duty of the appellate court that whether conviction for the minor offence is
separable, when the major alleged offences are acquitted. Though there are no legal
and acceptable evidence of PW2, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the
accused for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC
which is not sustainable in law.
22. "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done". This dictum
was laid down by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of
Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.Accused rights are imbibed with the
personal liberty which is enshrined under Art.21 of the Indian Constitution and
considering the fact that the major alleged offences are already acquitted by the
sessions judge ,which carries the weightage of innocence as to the alleged offence,
imparting the jurisprudence of the adversarial criminal justice delivery system , to
avoid the miscarriage of Justice ,it is just and proper to interfere in the impugned
judgment passed by the Sessions Judge by invoking the power under Sec.386 of
Cr.P.C..
23. Before parting with, we place on record 'word of appreciation' for Miss Vaishali

08-05-2024 (Page 8 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University

K.Kaladagi learned Counsel who has appeared as an amicus curiae and has rendered
legal assistance to this Court.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed
to prove the guilt of the accused punishable under Sections 376, and 506 of IPC and
Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal appeal is dismissed.
ii) The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused for the
commission of an offense punishable under Section 506 of IPC is set aside
and the accused-respondent acquitted from the commission of the alleged
offense punishable under Section 506 of IPC.
iii) Office is directed to transmit the Trial Court record to the concerned Court
forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
iii) The Registry is directed to pay honorarium of Ten Thousand Rs. 10,000/-
to the Amicus Curie for the legal assistance this Court.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

08-05-2024 (Page 9 of 9) www.manupatra.com Karnavati University