False POCSO<\/em> Case<\/em>: A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh<\/strong> and Justice Venkatesh Naik T<\/strong> of the Karnataka High Court<\/strong> considered appeals filed<\/strong> by the State and the victim\u2019s mother against the acquittal of an accused<\/strong> who had faced charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act<\/strong>. The appellants sought to overturn the Trial Court\u2019s acquittal order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to prosecution, the accused and victim knew each other<\/strong> 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<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trial Court acquitted the accused<\/strong>, holding that minority was not proved and medical evidence did not support sexual assault<\/strong>. Before the High Court, the State and victim\u2019s mother argued that the victim\u2019s statements and school records established guilt and minority, while the defence highlighted absence of reliable age proof<\/strong>, medical corroboration, and evidence of force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On rape allegations, the Court relied on medical evidence showing no injuries and intact hymen<\/strong>, holding:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a0\u201cThe medical evidence not supports the evidence of P.W.3\u2026 and hence, the question of invoking the offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act does not arise.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Regarding age, the Court held school records were insufficient legal proof and emphasized absence of birth certificate and medical age determination, recording:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOssification test is also not conducted in order to come to a conclusion with regard to the age of the victim is concerned.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finding that prosecution failed to prove minority, kidnapping, and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the acquittal<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> IPC Section 361<\/strong><\/td> Defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship<\/td> Court held ingredient of forcible taking from guardian was not proved<\/td><\/tr> IPC Section 363<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for kidnapping<\/td> Not attracted as kidnapping itself was not established<\/td><\/tr> IPC Section 366<\/strong><\/td> Kidnapping\/abduction for marriage or illicit intercourse<\/td> Failed due to absence of proof of abduction or coercion<\/td><\/tr> IPC Section 376<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for rape<\/a><\/td> Not invoked because medical evidence showed no signs of sexual intercourse<\/td><\/tr> POCSO<\/a> Section 5(l)<\/strong><\/td> Defines aggravated penetrative sexual assault<\/td> Not applicable due to failure to prove minority and sexual assault<\/td><\/tr> POCSO Section 6<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault<\/td> Consequence provision not attracted after prosecution failed<\/td><\/tr> CrPC Section 164<\/strong><\/td> Recording of victim statement before Magistrate<\/td> Victim\u2019s judicial statement considered but lacked corroboration<\/td><\/tr> CrPC Section 378<\/strong><\/td> State appeal against acquittal<\/td> Used by State to challenge Trial Court acquittal<\/td><\/tr> CrPC Section 372<\/strong><\/td> Victim\u2019s right to appeal against acquittal<\/td> Invoked by victim\u2019s mother to seek conviction<\/td><\/tr> JJ Act Section 94<\/strong><\/td> Procedure for determination of age<\/td> Court held school records insufficient and age not proved under statutory criteria<\/td><\/tr> Evidence Act<\/a> Section 65B<\/strong><\/td> Admissibility of electronic evidence<\/td> Certificate produced as part of documentary evidence during trial<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n