Lack of Cogent Evidence Leads to Dismissal of State's Appeal Against Acquittal of Accused in Alleged Sexual Assault
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the acquittal of two accused in a high-profile case concerning charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing a lack of cogent evidence. The judgment, delivered on January 29, 2026, dismissed the State of Karnataka's appeal against the acquittal pronounced by the Trial Court.
The case involved serious allegations of sexual assault on a minor, with charges framed under Sections 366(A), 376(1), 354(A)(1)(i)(2), and (D) of the IPC, alongside Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 11(iii), and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution claimed that the victim, a minor girl, was subjected to sexual assault by the accused, Manikanta @ Manu and others, at various locations in Karnataka.
The Trial Court had previously acquitted the accused, citing inconsistencies in the victim's statements and a lack of corroborative evidence. Notably, the medical evidence did not conclusively establish the victim's age as minor, and no ossification test was conducted to verify her age. The victim's statement under Section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) also failed to corroborate the allegations, leading the Trial Court to determine that the charges could not be sustained.
During the appeal hearing, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justices H.P. Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T., examined the evidence and arguments presented by the State. The High Court emphasized the absence of credible evidence to establish the victim's minority and the alleged sexual assault. The Court noted that the victim herself admitted to being 18 years old at the time of the incident, contradicting the prosecution's claim of her being a minor.
The judgment highlighted the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in cases involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act. The Court reiterated that without cogent evidence, charges of sexual assault and related offenses could not be upheld. The High Court also pointed out that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by the lack of medical corroboration and reliable witness testimony.
The State's appeal was primarily based on the argument that the Trial Court had erred in its assessment of the victim's age and the evidence presented. However, the High Court found no merit in these arguments, affirming the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused due to insufficient evidence.
This ruling underscores the judicial system's emphasis on evidence-based adjudication, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual offenses. The decision also reflects the challenges faced by the prosecution in proving charges beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is inconsistent or lacking.
As the legal proceedings conclude, the judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role of evidence in ensuring justice and upholding the rights of both the accused and the alleged victims.
Bottom Line:
In the absence of cogent evidence, allegations under Sections 366(A), 376(1), 354(A)(1)(i)(2) and (D) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 11(iii), and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 cannot be sustained.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 366(A), 376(1), 354(A)(1)(i)(2), (D); POCSO Act, 2012 Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 11(iii), 12; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Section 94; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 164(5).
State Of Karnataka v. Manikanta @ Manu, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849094
