Karnataka High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Against Acquittal; Finds POCSO Victim’s Age Not Proved as Required by Law

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 14.09.2026

Karnataka High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Against Acquittal; Finds POCSO Victim’s Age Not Proved as Required by Law

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of an accused charged under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), holding that an appellate court cannot interfere with an acquittal merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

The Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice M.G.S. Kamal found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s appreciation of the evidence and consequently refused to overturn the acquittal.

State Challenged Acquittal in POCSO Case

• The State of Karnataka approached the High Court under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 16 November 2016 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court for POCSO cases, Tumkur, in Special Case No.120/2013.
• The Trial Court had acquitted the accused of offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
• The prosecution case arose from Crime No.34/2013 registered by Madhugiri Police. The prosecution alleged that the victim was 15 years old on the date of the incident and that the accused had entered her house and committed penetrative sexual assault.

Trial Court Acquitted Accused

• During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, produced Exhibits P1 to P9 and marked material objects. The accused denied the charges and did not lead separate defence evidence after his examination under Section 313 CrPC.
• The Trial Court ultimately acquitted him, principally finding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was below 18 years of age in accordance with law and had also failed to prove the allegation of forcible penetrative sexual assault.
• The State challenged these findings before the Karnataka High Court.

Proof of Victim’s Age Was Essential for Section 4 POCSO Charge

• One of the central issues before the High Court was whether the prosecution had legally established the age of the victim.
• The Court observed that, to sustain the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the prosecution was required to establish that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incident.
• Similarly, to prove the charge under Section 376 IPC, the prosecution was required, in the context of the charges framed in this case, to establish the alleged forcible penetrative sexual assault. The prosecution was also required to prove the alleged criminal trespass into the house.

Karnataka HC Relies on Supreme Court’s Mahadeo Judgment on Age Determination

• For determining the proper method of proving age, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 637.
• The judgment referred to the hierarchy prescribed under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for age determination.
• Under that framework, the relevant evidence is to be considered in sequence: matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available; in its absence, the date-of-birth certificate from the first school attended; thereafter, a birth certificate issued by the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat; and only when such documentary evidence is unavailable may medical opinion be resorted to.
• The High Court observed that the Supreme Court in Mahadeo had held that the same yardstick could appropriately be followed by courts while determining the age of a victim.

Matriculation Certificate Not Produced Despite Victim Studying in SSLC

• Applying this principle, the High Court found a significant deficiency in the prosecution evidence.
• The complaint itself stated that the victim was studying in SSLC at the relevant time. Yet, the prosecution did not produce her matriculation certificate. Nor was it the prosecution’s case that she had dropped out of school.
• Instead, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the Headmaster of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Girl’s High School, Madhugiri, and a certificate marked as Ex.P8.
• However, the certificate had itself been prepared on the basis of a transfer certificate submitted at the time of admission to that school, and the Headmaster stated that he did not know who had written the underlying transfer certificate.
• The High Court consequently held that this evidence did not satisfy the requirement contemplated under Rule 12(3) as explained in Mahadeo.

No Birth Certificate or Ossification Test Produced

• The Court further noted that the Investigating Officer had neither produced a birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or panchayat nor referred the victim for an ossification test.
• There was also no explanation for the failure to produce the required documentary evidence.
• The High Court therefore agreed with the Trial Court that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident.
• This finding was crucial to the prosecution’s charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

High Court Reiterates Limited Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal

• The Division Bench then examined whether the Trial Court’s findings concerning the IPC offences warranted interference.
• For this purpose, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 88.
• The principle reiterated by the High Court was that where a conclusion regarding the innocence of an accused is reasonably possible on the evidence and materials on record, the appellate court should not disturb the Trial Court’s acquittal merely because it might, on re-appreciation, prefer another view.
• The Karnataka High Court summarised the position by observing that merely because two views are possible, an acquittal cannot be interfered with unless the judgment suffers from patent illegality or perversity.

Delay in Complaint and FIR Considered

• The Court also considered the prosecution’s explanation regarding the timing of the complaint.
• The alleged incident was stated to have occurred on 6 March 2013 at around 6:30 p.m., whereas the complaint was lodged on 9 March 2013 at 7:00 p.m. The FIR reached the Trial Court on 10 March 2013 at 6:50 p.m.
• The complainant explained that he had waited for his wife to return from Bengaluru before lodging the complaint. However, the High Court observed that the evidence indicated that the complainant had already informed his wife over the phone shortly after the incident.
• The Court therefore found the delay relevant in the overall assessment of the prosecution case, particularly as the delay in forwarding the FIR was also not explained.

Victim’s Testimony and Medical Evidence Raised Further Doubts

• The High Court also considered the victim’s testimony during cross-examination. The judgment records that she stated that, apart from the accused hugging her and holding her hands, he did not do anything else to her, and that she had informed her father and uncle about those acts when they returned home.
• The Court further noted that the medical examination was conducted within four days of the alleged incident and that the medical evidence recorded no traces of recent sexual intercourse.
• Additionally, no independent witnesses were examined regarding the incident, while the principal prosecution witnesses were members of the same family.
• These circumstances were considered cumulatively rather than as standalone rules about how sexual-offence allegations must be proved.

Evidence of Political Rivalry Also Considered

• The accused had contended that he was falsely implicated because of political rivalry with the victim’s father.
• Although the father denied belonging to a political party, the victim stated in cross-examination that her father and uncle were JDS party workers, whereas the accused belonged to the Congress party.
• The High Court considered this inconsistency relevant in assessing the Trial Court’s conclusion that the charges had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Subsequent Marriage Between Accused and Victim Not Disclosed During Trial

• The judgment also records an unusual subsequent development.
• Documents from M.C. No.82/2022 showed that the victim later sought divorce from the accused on grounds of desertion and cruelty. According to those proceedings, she and the accused had married on 14 June 2015, had a daughter from the marriage and lived together for about two years.
• The High Court observed that the charge sheet had been filed on 24 May 2013 and the Trial Court judgment was delivered on 16 November 2016, meaning the marriage occurred while the criminal trial was pending.
• The fact of their marriage had not been disclosed before the Trial Court. The High Court treated this as a suppression of a material fact and as an additional circumstance supporting its decision not to interfere with the acquittal.

No Perversity or Illegality in Trial Court’s Acquittal

• After re-appreciating the material, the Karnataka High Court concluded that the Trial Court had reached a possible view on the evidence.
• The Division Bench found no perversity or illegality in the acquittal and reiterated that the existence of another possible interpretation of the evidence does not by itself permit an appellate court to reverse an acquittal.
• Accordingly, the State’s appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused remained undisturbed.

Judgments Referred

The Karnataka High Court principally relied upon two Supreme Court decisions:

1. Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 637 — concerning the legally recognised hierarchy of evidence for determination of the age of a juvenile/victim.
2. Prem Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 88 — concerning the limited scope of appellate interference with an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.

Key Takeaway

The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed two important criminal-law principles. First, where minority is an essential ingredient for application of the POCSO Act, the prosecution must prove the victim’s age through legally acceptable evidence in accordance with the prescribed hierarchy. Second, an acquittal enjoys substantial protection in appellate proceedings: where the Trial Court’s view is reasonably possible on the evidence, the High Court cannot reverse it simply because another view may also be possible.

In the present case, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the victim’s minority through the prescribed evidence, while the Trial Court’s assessment of the testimony, medical evidence and surrounding circumstances was found to be a possible view. The State therefore failed in its appeal and the accused’s acquittal was upheld.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com