The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. After examining the evidence, the Court found the prosecution’s case riddled with inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and lack of independent corroboration. The judgment highlights how the legal system must remain cautious and evidence-focused, particularly in sensitive cases involving family disputes and grave allegations.
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent, a French national and former diplomat, was accused by his wife of repeatedly sexually assaulting their daughter, aged approximately 3 years at the time of the alleged events. The complaint stated incidents from 2010 to June 2012. The complainant approached multiple NGOs and doctors before lodging a formal police complaint. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused in 2017. This appeal, filed under Section 372 CrPC, challenged that acquittal.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 376(2)(f), IPC: Pertains to rape of a child under 12 years of age.
- Section 377, IPC: Addresses unnatural sexual offences.
Arguments by the Appellant (Complainant)
- The delay in filing the FIR was due to hesitation and emotional turmoil, not deceit.
- Several medical professionals reportedly noted signs consistent with abuse, including vaginal redness and absence of hymen.
- Testimonies of the complainant and the minor victim were claimed to be consistent and credible.
- The court’s earlier view that the complaint was pre-planned was alleged to be an unfair reading of a distressed mother’s cautious steps.
Arguments by the Respondent (Accused)
- The case arose amidst ongoing marital conflict, including a custody battle.
- Medical evidence indicated urinary tract infection, not sexual trauma.
- DNA analysis showed the accused’s semen on certain clothes but no trace of the victim’s DNA, suggesting manipulation.
- The maid, who was reportedly present at the time of the incident, was not examined, weakening the prosecution’s narrative.
- The child, in her deposition, admitted being coached by her mother to say specific things.
Court’s Observation
The High Court carefully reviewed the full record and concluded:
- The complainant’s actions suggested a strategic build-up to filing the complaint, rather than a spontaneous reaction to abuse.
- No physical or forensic evidence directly connected the accused to any assault.
- The child’s DNA was missing from the clothing items allegedly worn during the incident, while the accused’s DNA was present—raising serious concerns.
- The failure to examine the domestic maid, a key independent witness, left a significant gap in the case.
- The minor’s testimony was inconsistent, and her admission of being tutored further eroded credibility.
- Medical opinions from independent sources consistently pointed to infections and conditions explainable by non-sexual causes.
Conclusion of the Judgment
Finding no compelling reason to overturn the trial court’s acquittal, the High Court upheld the verdict. The appeal was dismissed, with the court reiterating that convictions must be based on clear, reliable, and legally admissible evidence. In this case, that standard was not met.
Comments from the author of this website
As someone who has spent years advocating for men falsely accused in family and criminal disputes, this judgment speaks to a harsh truth I’ve witnessed far too often: a man can be branded a monster with no real proof—just an allegation is enough to destroy his life.
When I read this case, I saw a pattern I know too well. A marital breakdown, custody issues, emotional pressure—and suddenly, an accusation that turns into a criminal trial. The accused here wasn’t just fighting a legal battle; he was fighting a social lynching. From being painted as a predator to being denied dignity, every step of this case reflects how the system can be weaponized.
What hit me hardest was the fact that even when medical evidence didn’t support the claim, when the DNA results contradicted the story, when the child herself admitted to being coached—still, the man had to defend himself for years. And the key witness, the maid who could’ve told the truth, was never brought to court. Why?
I’ve stood by countless men facing similar storms. Some survive. Most are broken by the time truth emerges—if it ever does. This isn’t about denying justice to genuine victims; it’s about protecting the innocent from being destroyed by falsehood. The damage to this man won’t go away with an acquittal. He’s been through hell. And that’s why I fight—so that no man has to prove he didn’t do something he never did in the first place.
Final Thoughts
This judgment is not just a legal outcome—it’s a mirror held up to the system. It exposes the urgent need for balance, fairness, and accountability in how allegations, especially those involving children and family disputes, are handled.
When a man is accused of a heinous crime, society often rushes to judge before the facts are in. But justice cannot be built on assumptions, media narratives, or emotional sway—it must rest on evidence. The Court here did what the law demands: it looked at facts, scrutinized inconsistencies, and refused to convict without proof beyond doubt. That is how the system should function, always.
Yet we must ask—what happens to a man who loses years of his life defending against a false charge? Who answers for the trauma, the stigma, the isolation, the shattered reputation? This case highlights how easily the machinery of law can be misused, and how difficult it is for a man to claw his way back once accused.
It’s time we stop treating allegations as convictions. It’s time we uphold due process not just in theory, but in practice. And it’s time we stop being silent when men are wronged—because justice must be for all, or it fails us all.
Read Complete Judgment Here