The Karnataka High Court recently confirmed the conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of a 27-year-old man, Ansari, for sexually assaulting a six-year-old boy under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice J.M. Khazi dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s judgment dated November 24, 2022.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to March 15, 2022, when the accused lured the victim, a six-year-old boy, by offering him a ride on his motorbike. He took the child near the Aghanashini river, approximately 1.5 kilometers away, and committed penetrative sexual assault. After the assault, the boy was dropped back at the spot where he was picked up.
The victim’s mother noticed blood stains on his clothes and took him to a local doctor, who referred him to a hospital in Mangaluru for further examination. Medical reports confirmed sexual assault, leading to the filing of a police complaint.
Read also:- Orissa High Court Slams Husband for Misusing Habeas Corpus, Imposes ₹25K Cost for Frivolous Plea
The trial court convicted Ansari under:
- Section 377 IPC (Unnatural offences)
- Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act (Penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault)
He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh.
Ansari challenged the verdict, arguing:
- The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.
- The victim’s statement was recorded after a week’s delay.
- Medical evidence did not conclusively prove the crime.
- The complaint was filed late, weakening the prosecution’s case.
Read also:- High Court: Jail Imprisonment Can’t Be Ground to Reject Appeal Against Property Freezing Under NDPS Act
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating:
“The examination of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly establishes the allegations made against the accused. The trial Court, after a detailed and thorough analysis of the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.”
Key Findings
Age of the Victim: School records and birth certificates confirmed the boy was six years old, making the POCSO Act applicable.
Testimony of the Victim: The child’s statement was consistent and supported by witnesses who saw the accused taking him on his bike.
Read also:- Second Marriage No Bar to Maintenance Under DV Act, Rules Delhi High Court
Medical Evidence: Doctors confirmed injuries consistent with sexual assault.
Delay in Complaint Explained: The court noted that the child was traumatized and only disclosed details after medical examination.
No Ill-Motives Established: The accused was unknown to the victim’s family, ruling out false implication.
Legal Implications
The court emphasized Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which mandates stricter punishment when an offence falls under both IPC and POCSO. Since POCSO prescribes a minimum 20-year sentence, it overrides IPC’s discretionary sentencing.
Read also:- MP High Court Orders Mandatory Injury Photography to Prevent Misuse of 'Petty' Sections in Serious Cases
“The trial Court was justified in imposing rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of ₹1 lakh. There is no scope for interference in the punishment.”
The appeal was dismissed.
The trial court’s conviction and sentence were upheld.
Case Title: Ansari vs. State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100081/2023
Appearance in Court
For Appellant: Advocates Neelendra Gunde & Santosh B. Mane
For State: HCGP Abhishek Mailpatil
For Respondent-2: Advocate Chitra M. Goundalkar