By Shazia Siddiqui

In the recent case before the Karnataka High Court, the appellant contested his conviction and sentence under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), handed down by the Special Court. The appeal addressed the validity and severity of the conviction and sentencing.

The incident in question occurred in 2016, involving a minor victim who was acquainted with the appellant through a neighbor. The appellant was accused of repeatedly subjecting the victim, then a fifth-grade student, to sexual intercourse under the pretense of celebrating her birthday. The victim was taken to the appellant’s house, where she was assaulted and later threatened into silence about the encounters, which continued multiple times. The victim’s deteriorating health at school led to a medical examination, revealing her pregnancy. Subsequent DNA testing confirmed that the appellant was the father of the child she bore.

The Special Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(i) and (n) and 506 of the IPC, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act and one year of simple imprisonment with a fine under Section 506 of the IPC. The conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was based on the victim’s age and the severity of the repeated offenses.

Upon appeal, the Karnataka High Court re-evaluated the evidence and legal findings of the Special Court. A critical piece of evidence was the extract from the School Admission Register (Ex.P8), which was accepted to establish the victim’s age as 12 at the time of the incident. The headmaster of the school confirmed the date of birth recorded in the register, and the court deemed this testimony credible.

The High Court supported the Special Court’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, highlighting that the appellant’s DNA matched that of the baby born to the victim. Given the overwhelming evidence, the court asserted that the appellant’s conviction under Section 6 was appropriate. The court also observed that the conviction under Section 376(2)(i) and (n) of the IPC was unnecessary when a clear case under the POCSO Act had been established, as the specific offense under Section 6 encapsulated the gravity of the crime sufficiently.

The High Court pointed out that the sentence imposed by the Special Court was disproportionate. It noted that the Special Court failed to justify why the maximum sentence of life imprisonment was imposed without considering the legal framework before the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act. The court highlighted that, although there were hints of the victim’s consent, her actual age rendered any consent irrelevant under the POCSO Act. Nevertheless, the traces of consent were considered a factor in deciding against the maximum sentence.

The High Court modified the appellant’s sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000, aligning with the POCSO Act’s provisions at the time of the crime. The court also set aside the conviction under Section 506 of the IPC, finding insufficient grounds for upholding this specific charge.

The appeal resulted in the High Court partly allowing the appellant’s plea, modifying the sentence, and reaffirming the conviction under the POCSO Act while acquitting him of the charges under the IPC. This ruling underscores the precedence of specific child protection laws over general criminal provisions when adjudicating cases of sexual offenses against minors.

Case Title: Manikanta @ Puli v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 

Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:21233-DB

Click here to read/Download the judgement