High Court Emphasizes Mandatory Nature of Section 207(iv) CrPC; Prosecution Fails to Prove Victim's Minority and Contradictions in Evidence; Investigating Officer's Non-Compliance Renders Trial Unsustainable
In a significant judgment with far-reaching implications for criminal trials, the Karnataka High Court has acquitted an accused of charges including kidnapping, rape of a minor, and atrocities against a Scheduled Caste member, while issuing strong guidelines on procedural compliance. The Division Bench comprising Justices Mohammad Nawaz and G. Basavaraja reversed the conviction dated 20.10.2020 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2021.
The Facts of the Case
The case involved an accused who allegedly came into contact with a girl while on deputation for maintaining law and order in Gandhinagar, Kolar. The prosecution alleged that on 08.05.2019, the accused enticed the girl to accompany him to Bengaluru and subsequently to Thoranagal in Bellary District, where he allegedly committed rape on 09.05.2019 at the house of one Ramaswamy. The victim's father filed a missing person complaint, following which the accused and victim were traced together.
The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 363 and Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven to ten years and life imprisonment respectively, along with substantial fines.
Critical Issues Identified
1. Failure to Prove Victim's Minority
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a "child" as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. While the school certificate indicated the victim was aged 15 years, 7 months, and 7 days on the date of the alleged offence, the High Court noted critical deficiencies:
- The Investigating Officer failed to collect the SSLC marks card, which would have been the most reliable and authoritative proof of age as recorded by the Education Board.
- The birth certificate and hospital certificate, which the school had received at the time of admission, were not produced.
- The ossification certificate (radiologist's report) was not properly proved, as the underlying X-ray reports were not placed on record.
The Court applied the principle enunciated in Satpal Singh v. State of Karnataka that where the best evidence is available but withheld by the investigating agency, an adverse inference must be drawn under Illustration (g) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. Violation of Fair Trial Rights Through Non-Furnishing of Section 164 Statement
A landmark aspect of this judgment concerns the mandatory requirement under Section 207(iv) CrPC (corresponding to Section 230(iv) of BNSS, 2023) to furnish a copy of the statement recorded under Section 164(5) CrPC to the accused. The High Court found that:
- The copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164(5) CrPC was not furnished to the accused as required by law.
- The statement was kept in a sealed cover by the trial Court and only opened when the victim testified.
- The Investigating Officer had not even perused this statement before filing the charge-sheet, as evidenced by the index showing the document remained "in custody of Court."
The Court held that non-compliance with this mandatory requirement violates the accused's fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Citing Jessica Lal murder appeal, P. Gopalakrishna v. State of Kerala, and Tarun Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court emphasized that Section 207(iv) CrPC is mandatory and casts an obligation on the prosecution to furnish all documents free of cost and without delay.
3. Material Contradictions in Victim's Testimony
The High Court identified several significant contradictions:
- Section 164 Statement vs. Trial Testimony: In her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164(5) CrPC, the victim made no mention whatsoever of being kidnapped or raped. However, for the first time during trial, she deposed that the accused had taken her to the house of his elder brother Narayanaswamy and committed rape on her.
- Place of Alleged Offence: The victim's statement in Ex.P-2 (recorded by police) stated that rape occurred in Ramaswamy's house at Thoranagal. The charge similarly alleged the rape occurred in Ramaswamy's house. However, during trial, the victim stated she stayed at Narayanaswamy's house and subsequently denied that rape occurred at Narayanaswamy's house at any point.
- Medical Examination Discrepancy: Although the Medical Officer (PW-11) recorded the victim's history indicating she had sexual intercourse on the night of 09.05.2019, this statement was made on 21.05.2019. However, the victim's statement under Section 164(5) CrPC was recorded on 29.05.2019 (after the medical examination), and she made no mention of sexual intercourse in that statement. The High Court found this highly suspicious and inconsistent.
4. Lack of Corroborative Evidence
The Court noted significant failures in corroboration:
- Witnesses Did Not Support Prosecution: PW-3 (Ramaswamy, the house owner) and PW-8 (Hanumanthamma, his wife) denied the prosecution's allegations even when treated as hostile witnesses.
- Attesting Witness Failed to Support: PW-9 (Basavaraj, the attesting witness to the mahazar) did not support the prosecution case.
- Forensic Evidence Absent: Dr. S. Shanthi (PW-11) deposed that no evidence of forcible sexual intercourse was found. The scientific report (Ex.P-16) indicated that seminal stains were not detected on most items examined.
5. Improper Framing of Charge
The High Court found that the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, an aggravated offense carrying a minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment, without any charge having been formally framed for this specific offense. The accused was charged only under Sections 363 and 376 IPC (rape), not under Section 376(2)(n) (rape committed multiple times on the same victim).
This violation of procedural fairness deprived the accused of the opportunity to defend himself against the specific ingredients of the aggravated offense, which the Court held was a prejudice that goes to the root of the trial and cannot be cured as a mere irregularity.
6. Failure to Prove Knowledge of Caste
None of the prosecution witnesses deposed before the Court that the accused had knowledge that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste community at the time of the alleged offense. Therefore, the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was unsustainable.
Broader Implications and Guidelines
The High Court issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent such procedural lapses in future cases:
1. Magistrates must preserve statements recorded under Section 164(5) CrPC in safe custody.
2. Investigating Officers must peruse statements under Section 164(5) CrPC before submitting the charge-sheet and apply their mind to whether such statements support or contradict the prosecution's case.
3. Investigating Officers must obtain certified copies of Section 164(5) statements from the Magistrate before filing the charge-sheet.
4. Where a witness has not deposed anything against the accused in their Section 164(5) statement, the Investigating Officer must satisfy himself that sufficient independent material exists to justify filing the charge-sheet.
5. Trial Courts must ensure that copies of all documents, including Section 164(5) statements, are furnished to the accused as mandated under Section 207(iv) CrPC.
6. Magistrates and Special Judges must put relevant questions to the accused under Section 313 CrPC regarding statements recorded under Section 164(5) CrPC, enabling the accused to explain or contest their validity.
The Court directed that these guidelines be circulated to all trial courts, forwarded to the Judicial Academy for training of judges, and transmitted to police departments to ensure compliance by Investigating Officers.
Acquittal and Release
- The High Court allowed the appeal and:
- Set aside the trial Court's judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2020
- Acquitted the accused of all charges: Section 363 IPC, Section 376(2)(n) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Directed the registry to communicate with the concerned jail authority for the accused's immediate release
Significance
This judgment represents a significant reaffirmation of the principle that a fair trial is not merely procedural but is integral to the protection of fundamental human rights. While acknowledging the special vulnerabilities of victims in sexual assault cases, the Court stressed that these protections cannot serve as a substitute for rigorous proof and adherence to procedural fairness. The judgment underscores that the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and cannot be compromised, regardless of the gravity of the offense or the vulnerability of the victim.
Bottom Line:
Non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 207(iv) Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 230(iv) of BNSS, 2023) regarding furnishing of a statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. to the accused violates the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
Section 207(iv) CrPC, Section 230(iv) BNSS 2023, Section 164(5) CrPC, Section 183(5) BNSS 2023, Section 313 CrPC, Section 363 IPC, Section 376(2)(n) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Article 21 Constitution of India, Section 145 Indian Evidence Act, Section 164 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Section 161 CrPC, Section 114 Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 169 CrPC, Section 189 BNSS 2023, Section 173(5) CrPC, Section 170(6) CrPC, Section 238 CrPC, Section 357(A) CrPC
V. Amaresh @ Ambarish v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka)(DB)...: Law Finder Doc id 2969624
