When the complainant herself does not support the case and medical findings show no injuries or proof of assault, can a conviction survive?
The Karnataka High Court says no—raising serious questions on how easily lives are put at stake without solid evidence.
False POCSO Case: A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T of the Karnataka High Court considered appeals filed by the State and the victim’s mother against the acquittal of an accused who had faced charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellants sought to overturn the Trial Court’s acquittal order.
According to prosecution, the accused and victim knew each other and were from the same native place. The girl was later sent to Bengaluru to stay with relatives, and it was alleged that on 16.10.2023 the accused took her from the house, stayed with her in a rented room, and travelled with her to Tirupathi and Hyderabad before dropping her near Jalahalli Cross. After her return, police recorded statements and filed a charge-sheet.
The Trial Court acquitted the accused, holding that minority was not proved and medical evidence did not support sexual assault. Before the High Court, the State and victim’s mother argued that the victim’s statements and school records established guilt and minority, while the defence highlighted absence of reliable age proof, medical corroboration, and evidence of force.
Re-appreciating evidence, the High Court noted the case began as a missing complaint and that material on record suggested the victim accompanied the accused. The Bench observed:
“It is important to note that to invoke Sections 361 and 363 of IPC, there must be an ingredient of forcibly taking her i.e., kidnapping the minor girl and no such forcibly taking of her from the custody of the guardian.”
On rape allegations, the Court relied on medical evidence showing no injuries and intact hymen, holding:
“The medical evidence not supports the evidence of P.W.3… and hence, the question of invoking the offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act does not arise.”
Regarding age, the Court held school records were insufficient legal proof and emphasized absence of birth certificate and medical age determination, recording:
“Ossification test is also not conducted in order to come to a conclusion with regard to the age of the victim is concerned.”
Finding that prosecution failed to prove minority, kidnapping, and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the acquittal.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| IPC Section 361 | Defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship | Court held ingredient of forcible taking from guardian was not proved |
| IPC Section 363 | Punishment for kidnapping | Not attracted as kidnapping itself was not established |
| IPC Section 366 | Kidnapping/abduction for marriage or illicit intercourse | Failed due to absence of proof of abduction or coercion |
| IPC Section 376 | Punishment for rape | Not invoked because medical evidence showed no signs of sexual intercourse |
| POCSO Section 5(l) | Defines aggravated penetrative sexual assault | Not applicable due to failure to prove minority and sexual assault |
| POCSO Section 6 | Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault | Consequence provision not attracted after prosecution failed |
| CrPC Section 164 | Recording of victim statement before Magistrate | Victim’s judicial statement considered but lacked corroboration |
| CrPC Section 378 | State appeal against acquittal | Used by State to challenge Trial Court acquittal |
| CrPC Section 372 | Victim’s right to appeal against acquittal | Invoked by victim’s mother to seek conviction |
| JJ Act Section 94 | Procedure for determination of age | Court held school records insufficient and age not proved under statutory criteria |
| Evidence Act Section 65B | Admissibility of electronic evidence | Certificate produced as part of documentary evidence during trial |
Case Details
- Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Raghuveer & Connected Appeal
- Case Numbers:
- Criminal Appeal No.1695/2025
- Criminal Appeal No.2122/2024 (C/W)
- Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Date of Judgment: 13 February 2026
- Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh & Justice Venkatesh Naik T
- Counsels:
- For State/Appellant – Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Additional SPP
- For Accused – Sri. G.A. Prema Kumar, Advocate
- For Complainant/Mother – Sri. A.V. Ramakrishna, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Allegations alone are not enough. Courts require strict proof of minority, force, and sexual assault before convicting any man under IPC or POCSO.
- Medical evidence matters. When there are no injuries and no signs of intercourse, conviction cannot be sustained merely on statements.
- Age must be proved as per law. School entries without proper statutory backing cannot automatically establish minority.
- Kidnapping requires proof of “forcible taking.” If evidence shows voluntary travel, Sections 361 and 363 IPC cannot be mechanically applied.
- Criminal law must operate on evidence, not emotion. Every accused is entitled to fair investigation, proper proof, and protection from wrongful conviction.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.